isle of wight shoreline management plan 2 · isle of wight council december 2010 final report...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © July 2010 Haskoning UK Ltd
Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan 2 Appendix J - Water Framework Directive Assessment
Isle of Wight Council
December 2010
Final Report
(unchanged from July 2010 for issue with Final SMP in December 2010)
9V8288 / 03
This report has been prepared by Haskoning UK Ltd. solely for Isle of Wight Council in accordance with the terms of appointment for the Isle of Wight SMP2 dated December 2009 and should not be relied upon by third parties for any use whatsoever without express permission in writing from Haskoning UK Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, including photocopying, or transmitted by electronic means, or stored in an electronic retrieval system without express permission in writing from Haskoning UK Ltd.
Copyright © July 2010 Haskoning UK Ltd
Document title Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan 2
Appendix J - Water Framework Directive Assessment
Status Final Report
Date December 2010 (unchanged from July 2010 for issue
with Final SMP in December 2010)
Project name Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan 2
Project number 9V8288 / 03
Client Isle of Wight Council
Reference 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Burns House
Harlands Road
Haywards Heath RH16 1PG
United Kingdom
+44 (0) 141 222 5783 Telephone
+44 (0)20 722202659 Fax
[email protected] E-mail
www.royalhaskoning.com Internet
HASKONING UK LTD.
ENVIRONMENT
Drafted by Jackie Lavender and Dr Elizabeth Jolley
Checked by Dr Elizabeth Jolley
Date/initials check ECJ 05.07.10
Approved by Dr Helen Dangerfield
Date/initials approval HRD 08.07.10
Contents Amendment Record
This report has been issued and amended as follows:
Version No. Raised by Approved by Date of Issue Description
Draft 01 Elizabeth Jolley Helen Dangerfield 28-05-10 CSG Review
Draft 02 Elizabeth Jolley Helen Dangerfield 08-07-10 Public Consultation Review
FOREWORD
Royal Haskoning was appointed to undertake the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Assessment for the first review of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2). This appendix
and the accompanying Annexes provide all the information required for the WFD
Assessment of the Isle of Wight SMP2, and sits alongside the other supporting appendices
as shown below:
The key contact for the WFD assessment is Dr Elizabeth Jolley. Responses
should be sent by email to [email protected] (copying in
[email protected]) or to the following address:
c/o Jenny Jakeways
Isle of Wight Council – Coastal Management
Salisbury Gardens
Dudley Road
Ventnor
Isle of Wight
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - i - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
CONTENTS
Page
J1 INTRODUCTION 1
J1.1 Purpose of the report 1
J1.2 Background 1
J2 ASSESSMENT OF METHODOLOGY 5
J2.2 Scoping the SMP2 – Data collation 6
J2.3 Defining features and issues 7
J2.4 Assessment of SMP2 Policy against the Environmental Objectives 7
J3 RESULTS 10
J3.1 Scoping the SMP2 – Data Collation 10
J3.2 Defining features and issues 22
J3.3 Assessment of SMP2 Policy against the Environmental Objectives 35
J4 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 74
REFERENCES 75
ABBREVIATIONS 76
ANNEX JI: SMP2 Policy Units and Relevant Water Bodies 77
ANNEX JII: Scoped Out Freshwater Bodies 85
ANNEX JIII: CSG Review Comments 89
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - ii - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Map of TraC Water Bodies in Isle of Wight SMP area.................... 12
Figure 3.2 Freshwater Bodies within the Isle of Wight SMP2 area, illustrating
river catchment typology (altitude, size, geology). .......................... 13
Figure 3.3 Groundwater Bodies in the Isle of Wight SMP2 area...................... 18
Figure 3.4 SMP2 PDZ boundary and water body boundaries at Horestone Point
and Bembridge ................................................................................ 19
Figure 3.5 SMP2 PDZ boundary and water body boundaries at Blackgang
Chine and St Catherine’s Point ....................................................... 20
Figure 3.6 SMP2 PDZ boundary and water body boundaries at Freshwater Bay
and The Needles ............................................................................. 21
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Environmental Objectives in the Directive......................................... 2
Table 1.2 Definition of Quality Elements ........................................................... 2
Table 1.3 Process for classifying Ecological Potential ...................................... 3
Table 1.4 Conditions for defending ‘deterioration’ in Ecological Status or
Potential ............................................................................................. 4
Table 3.1 TraC water bodies’ hydromorphological and ecological status....... 10
Table 3.2 Scoping of the FWBs (all are rivers within the Isle of Wight
Catchment) within the 1 in 1000 year flood zone and, hence, have
the potential to be impacted by policies in the Isle of Wight SMP2
area.................................................................................................. 14
Table 3.3 Groundwater bodies’ status, risk of saline intrusion and pressures /
risks.................................................................................................. 16
List of Assessment Tables
Assessment Table 1 BQEs within TraC water bodies that could be affected by changes to
hydromorphology as a result of relevant SMP policies……………..22
Assessment Table 2 Water Frameworl Directive Features and Issues for TraC water
bodies in the Isle of Wight SMP2……………………………………..23
Assessment Table 3 WFD Assessment of SMP policy for the Isle of Wight SMP2……...30
Assessment Table 4 Summary of achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives and
RBMP Mitigation Measures for each TraC water body in the Isle of
Wight SMP2 area……………………………………………………….48
Assessment Table 5a WFD Summary for the Solent coastal water body…………………..49
Assessment Table 5b WFD Summary for the Medina transitional water body…………….51
Assessment Table 5c WFD Summary for the Wootton Creek transitional water body…...54
Assessment Table 5d WFD Summary for the Eastern Yar transitional water body……….56
Assessment Table 5e WFD Summary for the Western Yar transitional water body………59
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 1 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J1 INTRODUCTION
J1.1 Purpose of the report
J1.1.1 The purpose of this report is to comply with The Water Framework Directive (WFD; referred
to in this report as the Directive), which came into force in 2000 and is one of the most
substantial piece of EC water legislation to date. The Directive needs to be taken into
account in the planning of all new activities in the water environment. Therefore, the
Environment Agency (the competent authority in England and Wales responsible for
delivering the Directive) has recommended that decisions setting policy, including large-
scale plans such as Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), take account of the
requirements of the Directive.
J1.1.2 The purpose of the WFD is to establish a framework for protecting inland surface waters,
transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwaters. The framework for delivering this
Directive is through the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). The Environment
Agency has divided England and Wales into eleven River Basin Districts (RBDs). The Isle
of Wight SMP area falls entirely within the South East River Basin District which was
published in December 2009. Each RBD has been characterised into smaller management
units known as ‘Water Bodies’. This assessment has been undertaken according to Water
Framework Directive: Guidance for Assessment of SMPs under WFD, which was
developed for the Environment Agency (Royal Haskoning, 2009), and with reference to the
WFD assessments undertaken for the River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 review and
the North Solent SMP2 review. The Environment Agency guidance describes the
methodology for assessing the potential hydromorphological change and consequent
ecological impact of SMP policies and ensuring that SMP policy setting takes account of
the Directive.
J1.2 Background
J1.2.1 The EU Water Framework Directive was transposed into law in England and Wales by the
Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003.
The requirements of the Directive need to be considered at all stages of the river and
coastal planning and development process. For the purposes of large-scale plans, such as
SMPs, the consideration of the requirements of the Directive when setting and selecting
policies must be necessarily high level. However, it sets the framework for future delivery of
smaller-scale strategies or schemes. The Directive requires that Environmental Objectives
be set for all surface and ground water bodies in each EU member state. The default
Environmental Objectives of relevance to the SMP2 are shown in Table 1.1.
J1.2.2 Specific mitigation measures have been set for each RBD to achieve the Environmental
Objectives of the Directive. These measures are to mitigate impacts that have been or are
being caused by human activity. In other words, measures to enhance and restore the
quality of the existing environment. These mitigation measures will be delivered through the
RBMP Process and are listed in the Programme of Measures within the RBMP.
Preventing deterioration in Ecological Status or Potential
J1.2.3 As stated in Table 1.1, a default Objective in all water bodies is to prevent deterioration in
either the Ecological Status or, for Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) or Artificial
Water Bodies (AWBs), the Ecological Potential of the water body. Any activity which has
the potential to have an impact on ecology (as defined by the biological, physico-chemical
and hydromorphological Quality Elements (BQEs) listed in Annex V of the Directive) will
need consideration in terms of whether it could cause deterioration in the Ecological Status
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 2 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
or Potential of a water body. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the possible changes
associated to baseline policies for each water body within the SMP2 area. This means that
a decision-making audit is available should any later failure to meet the Environmental
Objectives need to be defended, and issues for consideration when implementing policy
are highlighted.
Table 1.1 Environmental Objectives in the Directive
Objectives (taken from Article 4 of the Directive)
Reference
Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of
the status of all bodies of surface water
4.1(a)(i)
Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, subject
to the application of subparagraph (iii) for artificial and heavily modified bodies of
water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015.
4.1(a)(ii)
Member States shall protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of
water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water
chemical status by 2015.
4.1(a)(iii)
Progressively reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phasing out
emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.
4.1(a)(iv)
Prevent Deterioration in Status and prevent or limit input of pollutants to groundwater 4.1(b)(i)
Achieving objectives for EU protected sites
J1.2.4 Where there are sites designated under EU legislation (e.g. the Birds or Habitats
Directives, Shellfish Waters Directive), the Directive aims for compliance with any relevant
standards or objectives for these sites. Therefore, where a site which is water-dependent
in some way is protected by designation under another EU Directive, and the Good
Ecological Status or Good Ecological Potential (GEP) targets set under the Water
Framework Directive would be insufficient to meet the objectives of the other Directive, the
more stringent targets would apply.
Classifying Water Body status
J1.2.5 Ecological Status is expressed in terms of five status classes – high, good, moderate, poor
or bad. These classes are established on the basis of specific criteria and boundaries
defined against biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological elements (which are
set out in Annex V of the WFD); these are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Definition of Quality Elements
Type Description
Biological assessment Uses numeric measures of communities of plants and animals (e.g.
fish, macrophytes)
Physico-chemical assessment Looks at elements such as temperature and the level of nutrients,
which support the biology
Hydromorphological quality Looks at water flow, sediment composition and movement, continuity
(rivers) and the structure of physical habitat
Assessing Ecological Status
J1.2.6 The overall ecological status of a Water Body is determined by whichever of these
assessments is the poorer. A Water Body might achieve ‘Good Status’ for chemical and
physico-chemical assessments, but only achieve ‘Moderate Status’ for the biological
assessment; in this case it would be classed overall as having ‘Moderate Ecological
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 3 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Status’. To achieve the overall aim of good surface water status, the WFD requires that
surface waters be of at least Good Ecological Status and Good Chemical Status.
Achieving High Status
J1.2.7 To achieve High Status, the WFD requires that the hydromorphological Quality Elements
are also in place. For lower classes, although hydromorphological quality is not explicitly
required, it is a supporting element of the biological and in some cases physico-chemical
status and must therefore be taken into account. The Environment Agency has classified
the Ecological Status of all Water Bodies that have not been designated as HMWBs or as
AWBs.
Water Body Designation as Artificial or Heavily Modified
J1.2.8 The WFD recognises that physical alterations may have been undertaken to support the
use of a Water Body for a particular purpose (e.g. water storage, coast or flood defence,
navigation, etc). If this reason is still valid the Water Body may be designated as a HMWB.
AWBs are those Water Bodies which have been constructed only for a specific use (e.g.
reservoir). Any of the surface Water Body types (rivers, coastal, lake or transitional) can be
designated as HMWBs or AWBs, and subject to alternate environmental objectives than
ordinary Water Bodies, hence they have been clearly identified in each RBD and will have
been classified differently.
Ecological Potential
J1.2.9 The Environment Agency has applied a separate classification process for HMWBs and
AWBs based on separate guidance developed by WFD UK Technical Advisory Group
(TAG). Table 1.3 shows the steps that this guidance set out for identifying whether a
HMWB or AWB meets its Ecological Potential or not.
Table 1.3 Process for classifying Ecological Potential
Stage Description
1 Identifying the impacts of physical modification affecting the water body.
2 Identifying possible mitigation measures necessary to ensure the hydromorphological
characteristics of a water body are consistent with Good or Maximum Ecological Potential.
3 Assessing whether all of these measures have been taken.
J1.2.10 Where all applicable mitigation measures have already been taken or screened out, the
Water Body can be classified as Good Ecological Potential or better. Where one or more
applicable mitigation measure(s) remain to be taken, the Water Body has been classified
as of ‘Moderate Ecological Potential or worse’. This will then be combined with the
outcomes from other assessments to give an overall classification.
Assessing Deterioration
J1.2.11 Deterioration is reported as a negative change between classes in Ecological Status or
Potential. The WFD assessment considers any activity that has the potential to have an
impact on ecology (as defined by the BQEs) in terms of whether the activity could cause
deterioration in the Ecological Status or Potential on a Water Body, or could prevent the
Water Body from achieving its target Ecological Status or Potential. There are
circumstances in which failure to achieve the environmental objectives can be justified
under the WFD, these are:
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 4 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
• When failure to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status (or good
ecological potential) or to prevent deterioration in the status of a water body is the
result of new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or
alterations to the level of groundwater bodies; or
• When failure to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of
surface water is the result of new sustainable human development activities.
However, in order to justify deterioration under these circumstances, all of the conditions
set out in Article 4.7 of the WFD must be met.
J1.2.12 Where new defences, or maintenance works to existing defences, may be required as a
result of the SMP policy, they may have the potential to result in deterioration in current
Ecological Status or Potential, or to affect the achievement of target Ecological Status or
Potential. Such an affect could be due to contamination or more likely in the case of
coastal defence works, hydromorphological. Therefore, to take account of the requirements
of the WFD during policy making, where the policy has the potential to result in
deterioration in current or target Ecological Status or Potential, the conditions set out in
Article 4.7 of the WFD identified in Table 1.4 will need to be assessed and documented for
the relevant Water Body.
Table 1.4 Conditions for defending ‘deterioration’ in Ecological Status or Potential
Condition Description
A All practicable steps taken to mitigate adverse impacts on the status of the body of water;
B The reasons for selecting the preferred SMP policies are Reasons of Overriding Public
Interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the
environmental objectives are outweighed by the benefits of the preferred MP policies to
human health, to the maintenance of health and safety or to sustainable development;
C The beneficial objectives served by the SMP policies cannot for reasons of technical
feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly
better environmental option;
D The preferred SMP policies do not permanently exclude or compromise the achievement
of the objectives of the WFD in water bodies within the same RBD that are outside of the
SMP area; and
E There are no other overriding issues (e.g. designated sites, recommendations of the
Habitats Regulations Assessment).
Mitigation Measures
J1.2.13 Mitigation measures are defined as actions which aim to minimise or cancel the adverse
impact on the Ecological Status or Potential of the Water Body. By practicable steps, the
WFD is referring to actions or measures which could be taken to mitigate adverse impacts.
The way that the term ‘practicable’ is used in other legislation suggests that those
‘mitigation measures’ should:
• Deliver the results for which they have been designed
• Be technically feasible
• Not lead to disproportionate costs; and
• Be compatible with new modification or sustainable human development activity.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 5 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J2 ASSESSMENT OF METHODOLOGY
J2.1.1 The methodology devised for this assessment follows the Guidance for the assessment of
SMPs under the Water Framework Directive, which has been developed by the
Environment Agency (Royal Haskoning, 2009). The process has been broken down into a
series of clearly defined steps, broadly following the tasks and activities described within
the Defra guidance on producing SMPs (Defra, 2006), to provide a transparent and
accountable assessment of the SMP2 policies.
J2.1.2 The WFD assessment process for SMPs is shown in Figure 2.1 and these actions
undertaken with these steps are described in detail in the sections below. The results of
these assessments are set out in Section 3.
Figure 2.1 Water Framework Directive assessment process for SMPs
SMP Stage
Define features and
issues at a water
body scale
Data Collation
Assess preferred
policy
Complete WFD
Summary Statement
where necessary
Fill in Table 1
and Table 2
Fill in Table 5
(where necessary)
1) Scope the SMP
3) Policy Development
2) Assessment to Support
Policy Development
Using Tables 1 & 2,
fill in Tables 3 & 4
Input to SMP policy
development
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 6 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J2.2 Scoping the SMP2 – Data collation
J2.2.1 All the Transitional and Coastal (TraC) water bodies present within the Isle of Wight SMP2
area were identified and their ID numbers, designation and draft classification details
obtained from the Environment Agency.
J2.2.2 The generic Environmental Objectives set out below (based on Article 4.1 of the Directive
and as described in Table 1.1) have been used for the assessment of the SMP.
• WFD1: No changes affecting high status sites.
• WFD2: No changes that will cause failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or result in a deterioration of surface water
Ecological Status or Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will permanently prevent or compromise the
Environmental Objectives being met in other water bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause failure to meet good groundwater status or
result in a deterioration of groundwater status.
J2.2.3 The specific objectives for the water bodies within the Isle of Wight SMP2 area were also
identified from the RBMP for the Isle of Wight RBD, which was obtained from the
Environment Agency’s website1. However, for some water bodies in the SMP2 area, the
current overall status and objectives have not yet been assessed.
J2.2.4 The Environment Agency web-based ‘Flood Map’2 was used to assess whether there are
any landward freshwater bodies (FWBs) that have the potential to be influenced by SMP2
policies and should, therefore, be covered within this assessment. The names, ID
numbers, designation and classification details for any such FWBs were obtained from the
Environment Agency.
J2.2.5 Groundwater bodies (GWBs) that could potentially be impacted by SMP2 policies were also
identified by reviewing the WFD compliance mapping for groundwater risk (known as River
Basin Characterisation 2 (RBC2) and status assessment). Using the RBC2 mapping and
the WFD status maps for saline intrusion obtained from the Environment Agency, the
GWBs designated as being ‘At Risk’, ‘Probably At Risk’ or at ‘Poor Status’ within the SMP2
area were identified. The locations of groundwater abstractions with Source Protection
Zones (SPZs) within the SMP2 area were also obtained from the Environment Agency’s
website.
J2.2.6 Any discrepancies between water body boundaries and SMP2 boundaries were examined
and any locations where changes of the SMP2 boundary would be recommended to attain
consistency with water body boundaries were identified.
J2.2.7 All international and national nature conservation designations were identified. The
international sites, i.e. Natura 2000 designated sites (including Ramsar sites) and national
sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)) were identified from the existing Habitats
1 The draft RBMP is available at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33106.aspx 2 The Environment Agency’s Flood Map is available at http://maps.environment-
agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&l
ang=_e&textonly=off&topic=floodmap
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 7 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Regulations Assessment of the Isle of Wight SMP. It is also determined at this stage
whether there were any additional investigations that could be recommended for the next
round of SMP reviews to inform the WFD assessment, such as studies to address the zone
of influence in terms of Biological Quality Elements (BQEs). For example, the impacts of
changes in sediment transport may affect fish, as well as, benthic invertebrates, saltmarsh
and seagrass.
J2.3 Defining features and issues
J2.3.1 For the SMP2, sections of the coast are considered with respect to their influence on (and
interaction with) other areas of the SMP, and therefore a series of seven Policy
Development Zones (PDZs), as illustrated in Figure 3.1, have been developed which
incorporate specific sections of the coast. These sections of coastline have been
considered with respect to their influence on, and interaction with, other areas of the SMP.
Furthermore, each PDZ has been divided into Management Units (MANs), which
themselves are divided into Policy Units (PUs). Annex I details the relevant coastal,
transitional, freshwater and groundwater bodies that have been assessed for each policy
unit and the corresponding SMP2 preferred policy option.
J2.3.2 In the main SMP2 document for each PDZ, there are summaries of the preferred SMP
policy option and how this differs from the ‘with present management’ (WPM); these were
used to identify how the SMP2 policies could affect the WFD features (i.e. BQEs of each
water body). The physical parameters that could potentially be affected by SMP2 policies,
and the BQEs present within each water body that are dependent on these parameters,
were identified and are illustrated in Assessment Table 1 (page 23) for each water body.
J2.3.3 The key features and issues identified in Assessment Table 1 were then transferred into
Assessment Table 2 (page 24) and the water body classification, predicted ecological
potential, relevant WFD Environmental Objectives (set out in Section 2.1), relevant
Protected Area Designations, and the relevant ‘Mitigation Measures’ from the South East
RBMP were used to populate the Assessment Table 2.
J2.4 Assessment of SMP2 Policy against the Environmental Objectives
J2.4.1 The assessment of SMP2 policies against the Environmental Objectives was supported by
a tabulated account based on an adaptation of the Policy Summary tables for each Policy
Unit (PU) within the SMP2 report. Using the information on the water body features and
issues defined in Assessment Tables 1 and 2, the potential impacts of each SMP policy
were assessed at a PU level and summarised at a MAN level for the relevant water body
and recorded in Assessment Table 3 (page 36). In some places a water body may cross
over more than one Management Unit, for example the Medina TraC sits within two
Management Units (MAN1A and MAN1B). For each PU, the potential changes to the
relevant physical and hydromorphological parameters that might occur as a result of the
SMP policy were identified. The impacts of climate change on baseline processes were
also taken into account when assessing all epochs. The assessment of deterioration with
respect to the Directive considered the impact of any changes to the surface water body
features (BQEs) that were identified in Assessment Table 2.
J2.4.2 The assessment of SMP2 policies also included consideration of the potential for impact
upon the landward FWBs identified during the data collation phase as having the potential
to be influenced by SMP2 policies (refer to Section 2.1). These could potentially be
impacted where the SMP2 policy for a PU is No Active Intervention (NAI) or Managed
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 8 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Realignment (MR) as these policy options could result in saline inundation of freshwater
habitats and, hence, could potentially impact upon the freshwater biology.
J2.4.3 In addition, the assessment of the SMP2 policies in Assessment Table 3 included
consideration of the potential for impact upon GWBs. Particular attention was paid to PUs
where the SMP2 policy is NAI or MR, as these policies could potentially result in the
saltwater-freshwater interface moving landward, which, coupled with abstraction pressures,
could result in saltwater intrusion and deterioration of the GWB. For these PUs, the extent
of groundwater abstractions was identified through the use of Zone 3 (total catchment of
the groundwater abstraction) of the SPZ. Where Zone 3 of an abstraction was found to
extend to the coastline, or where it extended to the long term (100 years) predicted
shoreline, it was considered that an SMP2 policy could potentially cause deterioration in the
quality of the abstraction due to saline intrusion. Consideration was also given to the
potential for SMP2 policies to lead to deterioration in Status or Potential of the TraC water
bodies as a result of groundwater pollution.
J2.4.4 The outcomes of the assessment for each PU were then checked against the
Environmental Objectives (as set out in Section 2.1). For each PU Assessment Table 3
records whether the SMP2 policy has the potential to meet or contribute to the potential
failure of the Environmental Objectives. Following the assessment of SMP2 policies for
each PU, a summary of the achievement (or otherwise) of the Environmental Objectives
was completed at the water body scale (Assessment Table 4 – page 49).
J2.4.5 The relevant mitigation measures from the SE RBMP were considered when reviewing the
SMP policies for the Isle of Wight. This is particularly important since the SMP is an
important opportunity to implement some of the measures from the RBMP. Assessment
Table 4 summarises how many and which of the measures have been attained (or part
attained) by the changes in SMP policies, whilst Assessment Table 5 discusses in detail
how the mitigation measures have been incorporated within the SMP. The Action Plan in
the final SMP document must include a requirement for all schemes resulting from SMP2
policies to consider those mitigation measures listed in the SE RBMP Programme of
Measures.
J2.4.6 Where it was identified that the Environmental Objectives would either not be met for one
or more PUs within a water body or that there would be potential for deterioration in a water
body, then the need for a Water Framework Directive ‘Summary Statement’ was recorded
in the final column of Assessment Table 4. Summary Statements were then completed
for each of the water bodies as deemed necessary from Assessment Table 4 and are
given in Assessment Tables 5a to 5e (page 50). The Summary Statements address five
questions, which are as follows:
1. Have all practicable mitigation measures (including the South East RBMP
mitigation measures) been incorporated into the preferred SMP policies that affect
this water body in order to mitigate the adverse impacts on the status of the water
body? If not, then list mitigation measures that could be required.
2. Can it be shown that the reasons for selecting the preferred SMP policies are
imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and/or the benefits to the
environment and to society of achieving the Environmental Objectives are
outweighed by the benefits of the preferred SMP policies to human health, to the
maintenance of health and safety or to sustainable development?
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 9 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
3. Have other significantly better options for the SMP policies been considered? Can
it be demonstrated that those better environmental policy options which were
discounted were done so on the grounds of being either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly?
4. Can it be demonstrated that the preferred SMP policies do not permanently exclude
or compromise the achievement of the objectives of the Directive in water bodies
within the same River Basin District that are outside of the SMP2 area?
5. Can it be shown that there are no other over-riding issues that should be
considered (e.g. designated sites, recommendations of the Appropriate
Assessment)?
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 10 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J3 RESULTS
J3.1 Scoping the SMP2 – Data Collation
Transitional and Coastal water bodies (TraC)
J3.1.1 There are ten TraC water bodies within the Isle of Wight SMP2 (Figures 3.1). These
include three coastal water bodies (Solent, Isle of Wight East and Dorset/Hampshire) and
seven transitional water bodies (Medina, Wootton Creek, Eastern Yar, Bembridge Harbour
Lagoon, Old Mill Ponds, Western Yar and Newtown River). Table 3.1 provides information
on these ten water bodies in respect of designation and their Ecological Quality.
J3.1.2 Table 3.1 illustrated that all but three of the water bodies are classified as heavily modified,
with the Bembridge Harbour Lagoons and the Old Mill Ponds being AWBs and Newtown
River being ‘not designated as either an AWB or HMWB’. The Ecological Quality of the
water bodies is described as moderate potential for all but three. The Isle of Wight East and
Dorset/Hampshire coastal water bodies are described as having GEP, whilst Newtown
River is Good Ecological Status.
J3.1.3 There are two transitional water bodies that are designated as sensitive areas under the
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD); these are the Medina and Newtown
Rivers (Environment Agency, 2009a).
Table 3.1 TraC water bodies’ hydromorphological and ecological status
Water
body
category
Water body
ID and
name
Designation Ecological
Potential /
Status
Overall
Objective
Reason for
Designation
Relevant Mitigation
Measures from the
South East RBMP
Solent
GB6507-
0515-0000
Heavily
modified
water body
(HMWB)
Moderate
Potential
Good
Ecological
Potential
(GEP) by
2015
Coastal
Protection,
Flood
Protection
• Managed realignment of defences; and
• Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution.
Isle of
Wight East
GB6507-
0553-0000
HMWB Good
Potential
GEP by
2015
Coastal
Protection,
Flood
Protection
• Remove obsolete structures; and
• bank rehabilitation / reprofiling.
Coastal
Dorset /
Hampshire
GB6207-
0555-0000
HMWB Good
Potential
GEP by
2015
Coastal
Protection
None
Western
Yar
GB5207101
01800
HMWB Moderate
Potential
GEP by
2027
Navigation,
Structure
None
Newtown
River
GB5207-
1010-1700
Not
Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate
Status
Good
Ecological
Status by
2027
- None
Medina
GB5207-
1010-1600
HMWB Moderate
Potential
GEP by
2027
Navigation 3 related to dredging
Transitional
Wootton
Creek
HMWB Moderate
Potential
GEP by
2027
Coastal
Protection,
• Preserve and where possible enhance
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 11 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water
body
category
Water body
ID and
name
Designation Ecological
Potential /
Status
Overall
Objective
Reason for
Designation
Relevant Mitigation
Measures from the
South East RBMP
GB5207-
1010-1900
Structure ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone;
• Managed realignment of flood defence;
• Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution.
Old Mill
Ponds
(GB5607-
1011-6900)
AWB Moderate
Potential
Good
Ecological
Potential
by 2027
Flood
Protection
Structure
• Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach control, etc;
• Remove obsolete structures.
Eastern
Yar
GB5207-
1010-2000
HMWB Moderate
Potential
GEP by
2027
Coastal
Protection,
Structure
• Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach control, etc; and
• Remove obsolete structure.
Bembridge
Harbour
Lagoon
GB5607-
1011-7000
Artificial
Water Body
(AWB)
Moderate
Potential
GEP by
2027
Flood
Protection
Structure
None
Freshwater bodies (FWBs)
J3.1.4 There are a number of low-lying areas within the Isle of Wight SMP area that are prone to
coastal erosion and flooding, particularly on the northern coastline. Examination of the 1 in
1000 year flood area indicates that this extends for a significant area inland in certain areas
(e.g. Western Yar Estuary and Eastern Yar River). The FWBs located within the 1 in 1000
year flood area are labelled on Figure 3.2, and listed in Table 3.2 (refer to Annex II for the
details of the FWBs that were scoped out).
J3.1.5 There are 35 FWBs on the Isle of Wight, 11 are rivers and 24 are artificial/heavily modified
water bodies, but no freshwater lakes (Environment Agency, 2009a). Only 12 of these
have been scoped into the assessment as having the potential to be affected by the SMP
policies (refer to Table 3.2 below). This is based on whether the freshwater body lies
within Flood Zone 2, in that saline intrusion of the FWB will occur from a 1 in 1000 year
flood. Nine of the 12 scoped FWBs are classified as heavily modified, of which one has
Good Ecological Potential (Isle of Wight) and one Poor Ecological Potential (Lukely Brook),
whilst the rest Moderate Ecological Potential. There are three FWBs that are not
designated as AWBs or HMWBs: Dodnor Creek, Gurnard Luck and Little Thorness Stream,
with all attaining moderate status. None of the FWBs that are relevant for this WFD
assessment have been predicted to improve in status by 2015.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 12 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Figure 3.1 Map of TraC Water Bodies in Isle of Wight SMP area
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 13 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Figure 3.2 Freshwater Bodies within the Isle of Wight SMP2 area, illustrating river catchment typology (altitude, size, geology). Names of the FWBs in BOLD
indicates those within 1 in 1000 year flood zone in 2110.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 14 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J3.1.6 There is one Drinking Water Protected Area (DrWPA) on the Isle of Wight, which is the
Eastern Yar River Catchment and no surface water Safeguard Zone on the Island
(Environment Agency, 2009a). Furthermore, there are two rivers that are designated under
the Freshwater Fish Directive; these are the Eastern Yar (PDZ 3) and the Medina (PDZ 1).
Table 3.2 Scoping of the FWBs (all are rivers within the Isle of Wight Catchment) within the 1 in
1000 year flood zone and, hence, have the potential to be impacted by policies in the
Isle of Wight SMP2 area. All Isle of Wight FWBs water ID starts with GB10710100 – the last
four digits of the ID are given below.
Freshwater
Body Name (ID
number)
Hydromorph-
ological
Designation
Ecological
Quality
Objective Relevant Mitigation Measures from the
South East RBMP
Scoped In – At risk of being tidally flooded with from a 1 in 1000 year flood zone
Alverstone
Stream
(Medina)
(GB6160)
Heavily
Modified
Moderate
Potential
GEP by 2027 • Preserve and where possible enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone
Dodnor Creek
(GB6110)
Not
Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate
Status
Good
Ecological
Status by 2027
• None
River Eastern
Yar (GB5970,
downstream:
GB6010,
GB6220)
Heavily
Modified
GB5970 &
GB6010 -
Moderate
Potential /
GEP by 2027
– Good
Potential
GEP by 2027,
GB6220 - GEP
by 2015
• Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats (channel alteration);
• Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach control, etc.
• Structures or other mechanisms in place and managed to enable fish to access waters upstream;
• Re-opening culverts;
• Improve floodplain connectivity;
• Preserve and, where possible, restore historic aquatic habitats;
• Remove obsolete structure.
Barnsfield
Stream
(GB5980)
Heavily
Modified
Moderate
Potential
GEP by 2027 • None
River Medina
(GB5990)
Heavily
Modified
Moderate
Potential
GEP by 2027 • Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats (channel alteration);
• Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach control, etc.;
• Preserve and where possible enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone;
• Structures or other mechanisms in place and managed to enable fish to access waters upstream;
• Re-opening existing culverts;
• Preserve and, where possible, restore historic aquatic habitats;
• Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution; and
• Remove obsolete structures.
Isle of Wight
(GB6030 – off
Newtown
Harbour,
GB6040 – off of
GB6030 &
GB6040 -
Heavily
Modified
Remaining are
Good Potential GB6030,
GB6040 - GEP
by 2015
• None
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 15 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Freshwater
Body Name (ID
number)
Hydromorph-
ological
Designation
Ecological
Quality
Objective Relevant Mitigation Measures from the
South East RBMP
Newtown
Harbour)
unclassified
Thorley Brook
GB6060)
Heavily
Modified
Moderate
Potential
GEP by 2027 • Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats (channel alteration);
• Preserve, and where possible, enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone
• Re-opening existing culverts.
Gurnard Luck
(GB6240)
Not
Designated
AWB / HMWB
Moderate
Status
Good
Ecological
Status by 2027
• None
Lukely Brook
(GB6250)
Heavily
Modified
Poor Potential GEP by 2027 • Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach control, etc.;
• Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution;
• Preserve and, where possible, restore historic aquatic habitats;
• Re-opening existing culverts;
• Flood bunds (earth banks, in place of floodwalls);
• Set-back embankments;
• Improve floodplain connectivity;
• Structures or other mechanisms in place and managed to enable fish to access waters upstream;
• Remove obsolete structures;
• Preserve and, where possible, enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone; and
• Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats (channel alteration).
Great Thorness
Stream
(GB6170)
Heavily
Modified
Moderate
Potential
GEP by 2027 • Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats
(channel alteration).
Little Thorness
Stream
(GB6180)
Not
Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate
Status
Good
Ecological
Status by 2027
• None
Western Yar
(GB5960)
Heavily
Modified
Moderate
Potential
GEP by 2027 • Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats (channel alteration).
• Preserve and, where possible, restore historic aquatic habitats; and
• Re-opening existing culverts.
Groundwater bodies (GWBs)
J3.1.7 There are a total of four GWBs within Isle of Wight SMP2 area and no unproductive strata.
These GWBs and their status are listed in Table 3.3 below and are illustrated in Figure 3.3.
J3.1.8 Three of the major units (Central Downs Chalk, Southern Downs Chalk and Lower
Greensand) supply water for agriculture and industry and are heavily abstracted for public
water supply. All three of these GWBs are of Poor Status, whilst the Solent Group GWB,
which is not abstracted from to the same degree, is in Good Status. The total of licensed
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 16 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
water abstraction on the Isle of Wight is about 78 Million Litres per day (68% groundwater
and 32% surface water).
J3.1.9 All four GWBs are also protected as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs) under the
Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC), though these are due to sensitivity to nutrients
rather than saline intrusion. The South East River Basin Management Plan was referred to
determine the status for saline intrusion, since GWBs designated as being ‘At Risk’,
‘Probably At Risk’ or at ‘Poor Status’ within the SMP2 area could be impacted by the SMP
policies. None of the GWBs are designated as Poor Status, At Risk or Probably At Risk
from saline intrusion, all are ‘Good Status’ meaning saline intrusion is not presently or
regarded a future issue. Since there is no risk of saline intrusion into the GWBs, they have
not been assessed within this assessment unless there are any coastal SPZs. There are
two Groundwater Safeguard Zones on the Isle of Wight, both of which are reasonably near
the coast – these are on the south coast of the Island; the larger of the two is above
Ventnor and Bonchurch, whilst the smaller above Castlehaven, both of which are in PDZ 4.
These are also the locations of groundwater abstractions with Source Protection Zones
(SPZs) within the SMP2 area that are also on the south coast of the Island within PDZ 4.
Therefore, the risk of SMP2 policies resulting in deterioration of the aquifer is low in all the
PDZs except PDZ 4, which is assessed in Assessment Table 3.
Table 3.3 Groundwater bodies’ status, risk of saline intrusion and pressures / risks
Water body ID
and name
Overall
Status
Status
Objective
Risk of Saline
Intrusion
Pressures / Risks
Central Downs
Chalk (G3)
Poor Good by 2027 Good (confidence:
high)
Nutrients, pollutants
and abstraction
Lower Greensand
(G1)
Poor Good by 2027 Good (confidence:
low)
Nutrients, pollutants
and abstraction
Solent Group (G5) Good Good by 2015 Good (confidence:
low)
Nutrients
Southern Downs
Chalk (G16)
Poor Good by 2027 Good (confidence:
low)
Nutrients, hazardous
substances, abstraction
and other artificial flow
pressures.
Boundary issues
J3.1.10 Boundary issues within the Isle of Wight SMP2 assessment are reasonably complex, with
three in discrepancies involving the coastal water bodies.
J3.1.11 The first boundary issue is for the margin between the Solent and Isle of Wight East coastal
water bodies. The SMP boundary for between Policy Development Zones (PDZs) 2 and 3
do not align with this water body boundary, as illustrated in Figure 3.4. This matter was
discussed during the development of the PDZs for the SMP2; however, the PDZ boundary
was set based on the low-lying Eastern Yar valley that links the area surrounding
Bembridge Harbour and the northern coastline of Sandown Bay, since the coastal
management of the two is intrinsically linked. At a policy unit level, the water body boundary
for these two TraCs lies within PU3B.2, rather than aligned to the SMP boundaries. This
policy unit is a defended section of coastline with undefended sections either side (see
Figure 3.4). It would therefore, have made no sense to have split the policy unit into two
units so as to align with the water body boundaries. However, in the future there is a
possibility of realigning this policy unit, since the policy for this unit is to Holding the Line
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 17 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
(HTL) for the first two epochs and then have a MR policy in line with the adjacent policy
units (PU3B.3 and PU3B.4).
J3.1.12 The second boundary issue is for the margin between the Isle of Wight East and Dorset /
Hampshire coastal water bodies. The SMP boundary for between Policy Development
Zones (PDZs) 4 and 5 (and PU4B.3 and PU4B.2) do not align with this water body
boundary, as illustrated in Figure 3.5. This SMP boundary has been determined due to
coastal processes, as the long shore sediment transport around this headland changes
from gravel and sand along the southern-western coastline, to larger sediments of shingle
along the southern coastline of St. Catherine’s Point to Shanklin Chine. However, since the
water body boundary sits within an undefended section of the coastline, and which the
policy is NAI for PDZ 5 and PU4B.3. It would be possible in future reviews of the SMP, to
change the SMP boundaries marginally to account for the water body boundary, this is
illustrated in Figure 3.5.
J3.1.13 The third boundary issue is for the margin between the Dorset / Hampshire and Solent
coastal water bodies. The SMP boundary for between PDZs 5 and 6 do not align with this
water body boundary, with PU6A.2 spanning across the two coastal water bodies, as
illustrated in Figure 3.6. PDZ 6 encompasses Freshwater Bay around to the east of
Yarmouth because of the low-lying Western Yar valley that intrinsically links the two coasts.
A policy unit boundary could be added in at the Needles at the point where the Isle of Wight
East coastal water becomes the Solent coastal water body. However, this is not necessary
since the policy for PU6A.2 is NAI for all three epochs, therefore allowing natural coastal
processes to continue to erode the coastline, thus having no effect on the WFD objectives
for either of the water bodies.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 18 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Figure 3.3 Groundwater Bodies in the Isle of Wight SMP2 area
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 19 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Figure 3.4 SMP2 PDZ boundary and water body boundaries at Horestone Point and Bembridge
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 20 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Figure 3.5 SMP2 PDZ boundary and water body boundaries at Blackgang Chine and St Catherine’s Point
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 21 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Figure 3.6 SMP2 PDZ boundary and water body boundaries at Freshwater Bay and The Needles
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 22 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Nature Conservation Designation Sites
J3.1.14 There are a number of international and national nature conservation designations within
the SMP area that have been assessed by the Habitats Regulations Assessment
(Appendix I of this SMP). The Natura 2000 and Ramsar designated sites within the Isle of
Wight SMP area are the:
• Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar
sites;
• Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC);
• Briddlesford Copse SAC;
• Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC;
• South Wight Maritime SAC; and
• Isle of Wight Downs SAC.
J3.1.15 There are 17 Sites of Special Scientific Interest within the Isle of Wight SMP area that have
the potential to be affected by the SMP policies; these are: Medina Estuary; King’s Quay
Shore; Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek; Briddlesford Copses; Brading Marshes to St.
Helen’s Ledges; Whitecliff Bay and Bembridge Ledges; Bembridge Down; Bonchurch Slips,
Ventnor Downs, Compton Chine to Steephill Cove, Headon Warren and West High Down;
Colwell Bay; Yar Estuary; Freshwater Marshes; Bouldnor and Hamstead Cliffs; Newtown
Harbour; and Thorness Bay.
J3.2 Defining features and issues
J3.2.1 For the TraC water bodies in the Isle of Wight SMP2 area, the hydromorphological
parameters that could potentially be affected by SMP2 policies and the BQEs that are
dependent upon these are shown in Assessment Table 1. The key features and issues
for each water body in the SMP2 area are then summarised in Assessment Table 2,
together with the classification and Environmental Objectives for each TraC water body.
J3.2.2 There are three coastal water bodies around the Isle of Wight. The features and issues are
largely the same for each of these coastal water bodies, though the extent to which each of
the features is likely to be affected differs. This is mainly in part due to the differences in
the geology and geomorphology of the coastline, which determine the type of habitats
present. The Solent coastal water body, which covers the north side of the Isle of Wight,
comprises a mix of intertidal rocky shores (colonised by an array of macroalgae),
interspersed between rich intertidal mudflats and long expanses of sandflats. There are
also a number of seagrass beds in the shallow subtidal regions of protected bays and
occurrences of brackish and freshwater habitats (e.g. saltmarsh, grazing marsh and reed
beds) in low-lying entrances to creeks and streams. Consequently, this water body has the
potential to be affected by changes in salinity, turbidity, light levels and sediment loading as
a result of SMP2 policies. The Isle of Wight East and Dorset / Hampshire coastal water
bodies cover the southern side of the Isle of Wight, and are therefore characterised by high
geologically important cliffs, at the foot of which there are extensive intensive biodiverse
rocky shores and subtidal reefs. The difference between these two coastal water bodies is
the presence of seagrass beds in the shallow subtidal around the Bembridge headland in
the Isle of Wight East TraC, which are predominantly affected by changes in light
attenuation, sediment loading and elevation. There is also a long sandy bay within the
Sandown/Shanklin Bay, within which there will be benthic invertebrates that could be
affected by changes in the beach water table. Within the Dorset / Hampshire TraC there
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 23 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
are internationally important sea caves within the chalk cliffs that harbour diverse and rare
assemblages of macroalgae. Any changes in sediment loading that could cause abrasion
and reduce light attenuation will affect these assemblages. There are also no angiosperms
within this water body.
J3.2.3 The features and issues for the Transitional water bodies are similar to those for the coastal
water bodies, though they are predominantly composed of mudflats and saltmarshes, with
benthic/macroinvertebrates and angiosperms being the key BQEs, and with the added
need to consider impacts on phytoplankton and the potential impacts for fish through
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat and accessibility to nursery areas and migration
routes.
J3.2.4 There are no High Status water bodies within the Isle of Wight SMP2, therefore the
assessment of the Environmental Objective WFD1, which states that there should be no
changes affecting high status sites (Section 2.1) is not applicable.
J3.2.5 SMP policies have the potential to impact upon the chemical status of surface water bodies
where a policy of NAI or landward realignment is implemented at a location where there is
historic contamination (e.g. historic landfill) in close proximity to the coastline. There are
two historic sites with potential contamination issues within PDZ 1 along the Medina
Estuary: Stag Lane and Fairlee Waste Water Treatment. Therefore, it is considered
unlikely that policies within Isle of Wight SMP2 have the potential to impact upon the
chemical status of water bodies other than in PDZ 1. Chemical status is therefore only
been considered further within the relevant policy section (i.e. PDZ 1) of the assessment.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 24 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Assessment Table 1 BQEs within TraC water bodies that could be affected by changes to
hydromorphology as a result of relevant SMP policies (colour shading for
each TraC water body is as used Table 3.1 and in Figure 3.1)
Feature Issues Coastal Water
Bodies Transitional Water Bodies
Biological
Quality
Element (BQE)
Potential for change in
physical or
hydromorphological
parameter
Solent
Isle of Wight East
Dorset / Hampshire
Medina
Wootton Creek
Eastern Yar
Bembridge Harbour
Lagoons
Old Mill Ponds
Western Yar
Newtown River
Residence time ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Water depth ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Thermal regime ���� ����
Phytoplankton
Turbidity ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Episodicity (at low end
of velocity spectrum)
Salinity ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Macroalgae
Abrasion (associated to
velocity) ���� ���� ����
Inundations (tidal
regime) ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Sediment loading ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Land elevation ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Salinity ���� ����
Abrasion (associated to
velocity) ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Angiosperms
Light ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Beach water table
(TraC) ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Groundwater
connectivity ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Availability of leaf
litter/organic debris
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Connectivity with
riparian zone
Heterogeneity of habitat
(substrate, provision of
shelter)
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Continuity for migration
routes ����
Substrate conditions ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Presence of
macrophytes ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
Fish
Accessibility to nursery
areas (elevation of
saltmarsh, connectivity
with shoreline/riparian
zone)
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
���� = Applies to water body ? = Might apply and hence included
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 25 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Assessment Table 2 Water Framework Directive Features and Issues for TraC water bodies in the Isle of Wight SMP2 (colour shading for each TraC water body is
as used Table 3.1 and in Figure 3.1)
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
control structures or defences may result in
changes in wave and current dynamics and
subsequent changes in abrasion patterns.
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
SMP2 policies have the potential to cause
changes in the beach water table and/or the
groundwater connectivity upon which
invertebrates are dependent.
Solent (Coastal)
Fish Potential impacts on fish due to changes in
substrate conditions and/or accessibility to
nursery areas.
Classification: HMWB - moderate
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will
cause failure to meet surface
water Good Ecological Status or
Potential or result in a
deterioration of surface water
Ecological Status or Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other
water bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will
cause failure to meet good
groundwater status or result in a
deterioration groundwater status.
Protected Area Designation: Bathing
Water Directive (BWD), Natura 2000
(Habitats and/or Birds Directive),
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• Managed realignment of defences;
• Removal of hard bank
reinforcement / revetment, or
replacement with soft engineering
solution; and
• Preserve and where possible
enhance ecological value of
marginal aquatic habitat, banks
and riparian zone.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 26 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
Nitrates Directive (ND), Shellfish Water
Directive (SWD), Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive (UWWTD)
Macroalgae There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this relatively small and enclosed
water body.
Angiosperms Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
abrasion patterns.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Medina
(Transitional)
Fish Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Classification: HMWB - moderate
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designation:
Freshwater Fish Directive (FFD),
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• No measures that are relevant to
the SMP. There are three
mitigation measures, all of which
are in place and relate to dredging.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 27 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
Natura 2000 (Habitats and/or Birds
Directive), ND, SWD, UWWTD
Phytoplankton There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this relatively small and enclosed
water body.
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
abrasion patterns.
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Wootton Creek
(Transitional)
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
Classification: HMWB – moderate
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• Managed realignment of defences;
• Removal of hard bank
reinforcement / revetment, or
replacement with soft engineering
solution; and
• Preserve and where possible
enhance ecological value of
marginal aquatic habitat, banks
and riparian zone.
Eastern Yar
(Transitional)
Phytoplankton There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
Classification: HMWB – moderate
ecological potential
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 28 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this relatively small and enclosed
water body.
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
abrasion patterns.
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designation: BWD,
Drinking Water Protected Area
(DWPA), FFD, Natura 2000 (Habitats
and/or Birds Directive), ND
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• Changes to beach control;
• Retain marginal aquatic and
riparian habitats (channel
alteration);
• Operational and structural changes
to locks, sluices, weirs, beach
control, etc.
• Structures or other mechanisms in
place and managed to enable fish
to access waters upstream and
downstream of the impounding
works;
• Re-opening existing culverts; and
• Remove obsolete structure.
Bembridge
Harbour Lagoon
(Transitional)
Phytoplankton There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this relatively small and enclosed
Classification: Artificial – moderate
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 29 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
water body.
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
abrasion patterns.
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
Potential by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designation: Natura
2000 (Habitats and/or Birds Directive),
and ND
• There are no mitigation measures
in the RBMP for this water body.
Isle of Wight East
(Coastal)
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
control structures or defences may result in
changes in wave and current dynamics and
subsequent changes in abrasion patterns.
Classification: HMWB – good
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2015
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• Bank rehabilitation / reprofiling
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 30 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
SMP2 policies have the potential to cause
changes in the beach water table and/or the
groundwater connectivity upon which
invertebrates are dependent.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designations: BWD,
Natura 2000 (Habitats and/or Birds
Directive), ND, SWD, and UWWTD
(already in place); and
• Remove obsolete structure
(already in place).
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
control structures or defences may result in
changes in wave and current dynamics and
subsequent changes in abrasion patterns.
Dorset/Hampshire
(Coastal)
Benthic/macro SMP2 policies have the potential to cause
Classification: HMWB – good
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2015
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• There are no mitigation measures
in the RBMP for this water body.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 31 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
invertebrates changes in the beach water table and/or the
groundwater connectivity upon which
invertebrates are dependent.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designations: BWD,
Natura 2000 (Habitats and/or Birds
Directive), ND, and SWD.
Phytoplankton There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this relatively small and enclosed
water body.
Western Yar
(Transitional)
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
Classification: HMWB – moderate
ecological potential
Predicted Ecological Potential: Good
Potential by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• There are no mitigation measures
in the RBMP for this water body.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 32 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
abrasion patterns.
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designations: Nature
2000 (Habitats and/or Birds Directive),
ND, SWD.
Phytoplankton There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this relatively small and enclosed
water body.
Newtown
River(Transitional)
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
Classification: Not designated
A/HMWB – moderate ecological status.
Predicted Ecological Status: Good
Status by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• There are no mitigation measures
in the RBMP for this water body.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 33 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
abrasion patterns.
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designations: Nature
2000 (Habitats and/or Birds Directive),
ND, SWD, UWWTD.
Phytoplankton There is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
changes in water depth and turbidity, which
could potentially impact upon phytoplankton
populations in this small and enclosed water
body.
Macroalgae Potential changes to macroalgae through
changes in abrasion (associated to velocity) as a
result of SMP policies. For example, changes to
natural control points, control structures or
defences may result in changes in wave and
current dynamics and subsequent changes in
abrasion patterns.
Old Mill Ponds
(Transitional)
Angiosperms There is potential for changes in the frequency
Classification: Not designated
A/HMWB – moderate ecological status.
Predicted Ecological Status: Good
Status by 2027
Environmental Objectives:
• WFD2: No changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good
Ecological Status or Potential or
result in a deterioration of surface
water Ecological Status or
Potential.
• WFD3: No changes which will
Programme of Measures from the
RBMP that could be considered in
SMP development or in schemes
resulting from SMP policies:
• Operational and structural changes
to locks, sluices, weirs, beach
control, etc.; and
• Remove obsolete structures.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 34 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Feature Issue
Water Body
(Policy
Development
Zones/Policy Units)
Biological
Quality Element
Changes to BQE physical and/or
hydromorphological dependencies
Water body Classification and
Environmental Objectives
Opportunity to deliver mitigation
measures from the Programme of
Measures &/or recommendations on
preferred policy
of tidal inundations, sediment loading, land
elevation and abrasion (associated to velocity)
which may impact upon angiosperms.
Benthic/macro
invertebrates
Invertebrates have the potential to be impacted
by SMP2 policies through changes to
groundwater connectivity.
Fish SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
changes to the heterogeneity of habitat,
substrate conditions and accessibility to nursery
areas and, hence, could potentially impact upon
fish.
permanently prevent or
compromise the Environmental
Objectives being met in other water
bodies.
• WFD4: No changes that will cause
failure to meet good groundwater
status or result in a deterioration
groundwater status.
Protected Area Designations: Nature
2000 (Habitats and/or Birds Directive).
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 35 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J3.3 Assessment of SMP2 Policy against the Environmental Objectives
J3.3.1 Assessment Table 3 below expands on the assessment of the SMP2 policies, indicating
whether there is potential for environmental objectives to be compromised at a PU scale.
Further to this, an assessment of the likelihood and effect of potential failure at the water
body scale is made in Assessment Table 4, as well as summarising the South East RBMP
mitigation measures that have been attained by the SMP policies. Both Assessment
Tables 3 and 4 identify potential for failure and consequently track the decisions that have
been made within the SMP to meet conditions required to defend any later failure. The
process enables key potential areas of concern to be flagged up and the essential need to
refer to the South East RBMP Programme of Measures during strategy or scheme level
planning.
J3.3.2 The potential for the policies to affect freshwater bodies (both designated as FWBs or not)
should highlight the possible issues in defending those FWBs from tidal inundation and
flooding through sea level rise.
Environmental Objective WFD1
J3.3.3 WFD1 is only applicable to High Status water bodies. None of the TraC water bodies in the
Isle of Wight SMP2 area are classified as at High Status. Therefore, the potential of SMP2
policies to meet or fail WFD1 has not been considered further in this assessment.
Environmental Objective WFD2
J3.3.4 Four of the seven Policy Development Zones (PDZs) were identified as having potential to
contribute to a failure to meet Environmental Objective WFD2 (no changes that will cause
failure to meet surface water Good Ecological Status or Potential or result in a deterioration
of surface water Ecological Status or Potential). There are two PDZs (PDZ 2 and 6) where
the SMP2 policy of HTL could result in the loss of intertidal rocky foreshores, because as
existing outcrops are submerged, the hard defences prevent erosion from exposing new
rock outcrop, which potentially could impact upon macroalgae. Where there are SMP2
policies of HTL in the estuaries (PDZs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7), there could be changes in the
hydrodynamics and tidal elevation leading to increased abrasion and changes in substrate
conditions, which could potentially impact upon the macroalgae, phytoplankton,
angiosperms (e.g. saltmarsh and seagrass), benthic/macro invertebrates and fish BQEs (as
identified in Assessment Table 2), as well as the loss of saltmarsh habitats and estuarine
mudflats from sea level rise. However, all of the estuaries are HMWBs, with the exception
of Newtown River which is ‘not designated either an AWB or HMWB’. The intent of future
management for these estuaries is in line with the present management, and in many
cases (PDZ 1, 2 and 6) the intent is to improve the overall water body through NAI or MR
where there have previously been maintained defences. Therefore, deterioration in
Ecological Potential is not considered likely, however, the HTL policies will still mean the
SMP2 policies have the potential to prevent the water body from attaining Good Ecological
Potential. The policy of HTL within the Eastern Yar at Embankment Road has the potential
to impede the migration of fish with the present configuration of sluices and therefore
contribute to the failure of Good Ecological Potential. Though it should be noted, that by
having a HTL policy the environmental objectives of the River Eastern Yar FWB will be
maintained, since there will be no permanent change in the extent of the freshwater BQEs.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 36 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Assessment Table 3 WFD Assessment of SMP Policy for the Isle of Wight SMP2 (colour shading refers to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
PU1A.1 Gurnard Luck HTL NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU1A.2 Gurnard Cliff NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PDZ1 West of
Gurnard to
East
Cowes
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 1A
(outer part)
(Gurnard Luck
to Cowes
Parade)
PU1A.3 Gurnard to
Cowes Parade
HTL HTL HTL
At Gurnard Luck there is ongoing erosion along the frontage.
HTL will maintain the defence and later NAI will not preclude
private maintenance of defences. As sea level rises the intertidal
area will be lost. However, the intertidal here is very mobile with
sands and gravels dominating; there is limited benthos and
macroalgae present. NAI has the potential to impact the FWB
Gurnard Luck (GB6240) south of Gurnard Holiday village
through changes to salinity, inundations and the presence of
macrophytes due to saline inundation, which would impact on
the freshwater BQEs. However, this would be ensuring the area
is more sustainable, and providing the adaptation is done so as
to allow macrophytes to adapt to saline inundation, the policy will
not result in the failure to meet Good Ecological Status. A
sewage network pumping station (water company) on Marsh
Road lies within the Flood Zone 2 boundaries and is therefore at
risk from flooding and potentially causing contamination of the
Solent coastal water body.
At Gurnard Cliff NAI will continue to allow the cliff to erode
naturally.
Between Gurnard and Cowes Parade the defence of the road,
the Parade and properties requires HTL policy. This will lead to
loss of intertidal along this frontage. However there will be
limited effect on benthos and macroalgae and is unlikely to
contribute to the deterioration of Moderate Ecological
Potential or attaining Good Ecological Potential by 2015.
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 37 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
PU1A.4 West Cowes HTL HTL HTL N/A x ���� ����
PU1B.1 Central
Medina – NW
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU1B.2 West Medina
Mills
HTL HTL HTL N/A x x ����
PU1B.3 Central
Medina – SW
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU1B.4 Newport
Harbour
HTL HTL HTL N/A x ���� ����
PU1B.5 Central
Medina – East
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� x ����
Medina
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 1A (part)
(West and
East Cowes)
MAN 1B
(Central
Medina) PU1A.5 East Cowes HTL HTL HTL
The Medina Estuary extends 6.8km from its tidal limit at Newport
Harbour northwards to Cowes and East Cowes. It lies in a
narrow shallow valley with relatively steep sides. Sediment build
up has formed characteristic mudflats covering 66 hectares
which support a large number of species, including shellfish,
algae and locally and regionally important species of worm, also
important sources of food for fish and bird populations.
The proposed policies for this water body are HTL or NAI. HTL is
necessary to defend properties and business along the estuary.
Where NAI is proposed this is to allow the estuary to return to as
natural a state as possible, though it will not preclude the
maintenance of private defences (a course of action to be
expected). The central section of the estuary is moderately
defended either with private or public defences, with the eastern
side of the Medina being less defended than the west. NAI for
the most of the central estuary will therefore allow the migration
of the riparian banks with increasing sea levels, ensuring there is
little coastal squeeze of the saltmarsh and mudflats. However,
as sea levels rise coastal squeeze will occur where the defence
line is held. The estuary has lost 10ha of saltmarsh (an
angiosperm) since the 1940s due to development, dredging and
to a lesser extent through natural processes. Further saltmarsh
and intertidal mudflats will be lost due to coastal squeeze where
policy is to maintain the defences. BQEs such as benthic
invertebrates, macroalgae and fish could be affected.
There are a number of historic and current contamination risks
along the Medina Estuary, where SMP policy could affect the
N/A x ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 38 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
achievement of the WFD objectives for surface water bodies.
West Medina Mills has a policy of HTL to protect the important
wharf and associated business. An NAI policy would cause
contamination issues due to historic contamination associated
with dock and wharf activities at West Medina Mills and the Stag
Lane landfill site. There is a closed Waste Water Treatment
plant (Fairlee) on the eastern bank of the Medina which falls
under the NAI policy. The area is presently undefended, though
there is a small risk of flooding up to Little Copse, and depending
on the works there could contamination of the Medina River.
However, since there are presently no defences there it is
unlikely that there is a risk of contamination and therefore
unlikely to fail the WFD objective. Hence, deterioration in
surface water Ecological Potential of the transitional water
body (Medina) is unlikely since previously defended areas
are no longer going to be defended; however, attaining
Good Ecological Potential by 2027 will still be affected by a
moderate proportion of defences being held.
In addition, NAI within the central east and west Medina has the
potential to impact the lower reaches of the landward FWBs of
‘Dodnor Creek’ (in PU1B.2) and ‘Alverstone Stream’ (PU1B.5)
through changes in salinity and inundations, which would impact
on the freshwater BQEs. Alverstone Stream is currently
protected from extended saline intrusion from defences that hold
the Island Harbour Marina, whilst Dodnor Creek protected with a
managed sluice. A policy of NAI is unlikely to affect
environmental objectives of the Alverstone Stream, since the
Marina is likely to maintain their defences and therefore there
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 39 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
will be no increased saline intrusion. A NAI policy will mean that
tidal flooding will occur within Dodnor Creek (‘not designated a
HMWB’) and there will be losses of the freshwater BQEs around
the lower reaches of the stream. However, this will be returning
it to a more natural state of equilibrium.
The head of the Medina Estuary is defended to protect the
community of Newport, and therefore also prevents saline
intrusion of the lower reaches of the River Medina FWB.
Therefore the HTL will ensure that WFD objective for this FWB is
not compromised because of the SMP policy, thus ensuring that
the SMP2 is not the reason for any failure to meet Good
Ecological Potential for the Medina FWB.
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 1A (part)
East Cowes
Outer
Esplanade
PU1A.6 East Cowes
Outer
Esplanade
HTL NAI NAI HTL will occur until the end of the present defences’ effective
life, following this it is proposed that NAI to occur. In the short
term coastal squeeze will therefore begin to occur but in the
longer term NAI should allow the coast to roll back naturally
here. The BQEs in the wider water body will not be affected.
There are no FWBs in this policy unit.
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU2A.1 Osborne Bay NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ���� PDZ2 East
Cowes to
Seagrove
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant PU2A.2 Woodside NAI NAI NAI
The intertidal areas along this stretch of coastline are dominated
by intertidal sand and mudflats, interspersed with areas of rocky
foreshores and shingle spits, with a few small areas of coastal
grazing marsh. Subtidal seagrass beds can be found in Osborne N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 40 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
Management
Units:
MAN 2A
Osborne Bay
to Woodside
Bay. The creek at King’s Quay consists of estuarine habitats.
The NAI policy along the Osborne Bay and Woodside frontage is
anticipated to result over time in the failure of the cliffs and
slopes behind the frontage. The shoreline will be allowed to roll
back and further development of habitat can be expected.
Therefore, deterioration in Ecological Potential of the TraC
(Solent) water body as a result of the SMP2 policy is
considered unlikely.
PU2B.1 Western
Wootton Creek NAI NAI NAI
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU2B.2 South-west
Wootton Creek HTL HTL HTL
N/A x ���� ����
PU2B.3 Old Mill Pond MR MR MR N/A ���� ���� ����
PU2B.4 South-east
Wootton Creek HTL HTL HTL
N/A x ���� ����
Wootton
Creek
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 2B (part)
Wootton Creek
PU2B.5 Eastern
Wootton Creek
NAI NAI NAI
Wootton Creek consists of estuarine habitats ranging from
freshwater swamp, brackish reed beds, saltmarshes, shingle
spits and intertidal mudflats and that are used as feeding
grounds for Brent geese and other water birds and waders. The
offshore areas are used regularly as winter feeding grounds for
grebes, sea duck and divers and for terns during the summer.
Where NAI is proposed this should allow natural processes to
roll the shore back. However, maintenance of private defences
are not precluded and where homes and river frontages are
present these will no doubt be defended in the short term at
least. Where there are HTL policies for all three epochs (for the
community of Wootton Bridge), coastal squeeze will result in
intertidal habitats being lost in the creek with sea level rise.
BQEs would therefore be affected by this including fish,
macroalgae, minimal amounts of angiosperms (saltmarsh) and
benthic invertebrates. This could result in the Ecological
Potential of these two TraCs (Wootton Creek and Solent)
water bodies from failing to meet Good Ecological Potential
by 2027.
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 41 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
Managed realignment is proposed for the frontage at the Old Mill
Pond. The overall aim is to try to return this part of the creek to
tidal conditions. This however, will take time and very careful
management of changes to salinity, velocity of the water and
geomorphology, as though this would be the sustainable and
beneficial policy option, there could be negative affects on the
BQEs (especially angiosperms, benthic invertebrates and fish) if
not managed correctly. If the MR is carried out successfully the
BQEs will not be adversely affected.
PU2B.6 Fishbourne
Ferry Terminal HTL HTL HTL
N/A x ���� ����
PU2B.7 Outer Eastern
Creek HTL HTL MR
Where there are HTL policies for all three epochs for the ferry
terminal and for the first two epochs in the outer Eastern Creek,
coastal squeeze will result in intertidal habitats being lost in the
creek with sea level rise. BQEs would therefore be affected by
this including fish, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates. This
has the potential to result in the Ecological Potential of this
coastal water body from failing to meet Good Ecological
Potential by 2015.
N/A x ���� ����
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 2B (part)
Fishbourne
Ferry Terminal
to Binstead
MAN 2C
Ryde to
Seagrove Bay PU2B.8 Quarr and
Binstead
NAI NAI NAI
The Quarr and Binstead frontage continues with cliffs backing
intertidal sand and mudflats. Without defences, continued cliff
erosion is likely at Quarr and continuing re-activations of
landslides are likely at Binstead. In addition, small areas of the
narrow low-lying valleys at Quarr and Binstead could become
inundated as sea-levels rise because they possess very little
natural upper beach protection and rely upon defences. Their
tidal prisms would probably be too small to maintain permanent
inlets so brackish lagoons or marshes subject to periodic
inundation would be most likely to form. No BQEs will be
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 42 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
adversely affected by the NAI policy for all three epochs for this
frontage.
PU2C.1 Ryde HTL HTL HTL N/A ���� ���� ����
PU2C.2 Appley and
Puckpool HTL HTL HTL
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU2C.3
Springvale to
Seaview
(Including the
Duver)
HTL HTL HTL
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU2C.4 Seagrove Bay HTL HTL HTL
The rest of this frontage from Ryde to Seagrove Bay has a
proposed policy of HTL for all three epochs due to the built up
environment requiring sea defences to protect the communities
and assets from tidal flooding and coastal erosion. Sea level rise
has the potential to lead to loss of intertidal sandflat areas and
also increased depth of subtidal areas. There are large seagrass
beds (angiosperms) along this frontage. These beds needs
shallow subtidal areas in order to flourish. They support an array
of benthos, fish and are favoured as bird feeding grounds. If the
intertidal were lost there would be an initial increase in the
amount of shallow subtidal area, but with further sea level rise
this could be expected to actually decrease in area as depths
increase. However, since the area is a sediment sink and the
Ryde sands spit will continue to rise in pace with sea level rise, it
is likely that the seagrass beds would migrate landwards.
Therefore, the BQEs such as macroalgae, fish and invertebrates
are unlikely to be affected.
However, along policy unit 2C.4 there are rocky intertidal shores
inhabited by diverse communities of macroalgae, below which
there are seagrass beds. The HTL policy will mean coastal
squeeze of these rocky shores as coastal erosion process would
not be allowed to expose further expanses of rocky shore and
the depth of water would increase with potential for loss of
seagrass bed area. Therefore, BQEs such as macroalgae and
angiosperms are likely to be affected. This could result in the
N/A x ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 43 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
Ecological Potential of this TraC (Solent) water body from
failing to meet Good Ecological Potential by 2027.
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3A (part)
Priory Bay3
PU3A.1 Priory Bay
(part)
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3A.1 Priory Bay
(part)
NAI NAI NAI
There are a variety of coastal habitats within this PDZ from
intertidal rocky shores with seagrass beds (angiosperms) in the
shallow subtidal to long stretches of sandy beaches and soft
slumping maritime cliffs. The frontage along Priory Bay consists
of rocky shore and sand, backed by woodland. The policy of NAI
will ensure natural coastal processes will continue to erode the
coastline and allow landward migration with sea level rise.
Therefore, it is unlikely there will be deterioration in
Ecological Potential for the two TraCs (Solent and Eastern
Yar) as a result of the policy in PU3A.1. N/A ���� ���� ����
PDZ3 Seagrove
to
Luccombe
Eastern Yar
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3A (part)
Priory Bay and
The Duver
PU3A.2 The Duver HTL HTL MR The proposed policy at The Duver is one of HTL in epochs 1 and
2, and then moving towards realignment in the third epoch.
Bembridge Harbour mouth consists of two sand and shingle
spits backed by sand dunes and with extensive seagrass beds
(angiosperms) around the entrance. The Duver is a sand spit
which protects Bembridge Harbour behind it. The rationale
behind the MR is to allow the spit to act more naturally by
realigning the current defences landward. Once undefended it is
possible that although the spit will be eroded from both sides it
will begin to roll back naturally and continue to be fed by
sediment from Priory Bay. This will have to be monitored
carefully as without the spit the defences backing Bembridge,
the Harbour will become exposed. Allowing the spit to evolve
N/A ���� ���� ����
3 Refer to Figure 3.4 and paragraph J3.1.11 for boundary issue
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 44 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
more naturally will also ensure that the shallow subtidal
seagrass beds can move landward in time as sea levels rise and
the depth of water deepens.
PU3A.2 The Duver HTL HTL MR N/A ���� ���� ���� Old Mill Pond
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3A (part)
Priory Bay to
Embankment
Road
PU3A.3 St Helens HTL HTL HTL
The Old Mill Ponds is an area of intertidal saltmarsh
(angiosperms) that is protected by a causeway along the south-
east edge and The Duver sand spit along the north-east edge.
Bembridge Harbour, including the Old Mill Ponds is an accreting
system and is expected to maintain the existing habitat extent of
the intertidal area with sea level rise. A HTL policy is therefore
not expected to affect the functioning of the Old Mill Pond, or the
associated BQEs (i.e. saltmarsh, benthic invertebrates and fish).
Therefore, it is unlikely there the SMP2 policy around the
Old Mill Ponds will cause either deterioration in Ecological
Potential for this TraCs water body.
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3A.3 St Helens HTL HTL HTL N/A x ���� ����
Eastern Yar
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3A (part)
St Helens and
Embankment
Road
PU3A.4 Embankment
Road
HTL HTL HTL
Within the harbour and beyond (up the flood plain of the River
Yar to Brading) are a variety of habitats, including vegetated
shingle, saltmarsh, mudflats, saline lagoons and reedbeds. This
area supports large numbers of over wintering wildfowl and
waders.
The frontage at St Helens and Embankment Road needs to be
maintained in order to protect a vast area of hinterland from tidal
flooding within the second epoch. Freshwater habitat is also at
risk if the line of defence along Embankment Road is not
maintained. Investigations into the options for the Eastern Yar
Strategy have demonstrated that Bembridge Harbour is an
accreting system (supported by the need to regularly dredge the
N/A x ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 45 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
entrance), and that over time, the HTL policy would not cause
the loss of intertidal mudflats and saltmarsh with sea level rise
(Environment Agency, 2009b). The harbour inlet is still in a state
of adjustment following reclamation of the Yar River in the 1880s
and is continuing to accrete and possibly warp up, keeping pace
with sea level rise. It is therefore not expected that the BQEs
within the Harbour would be affected. However, the HTL policy
(all three epochs) means that the Eastern Yar Estuary is not
functioning naturally or sustainably in the long term and inhibits
clear migration for fish species up the Eastern Yar River, which
impedes the objectives of the Freshwater Fish Directive.
Therefore, even though some of the BQEs within Bembridge
Harbour are not expected to be adversely affected (i.e.
angiosperms and benthic invertebrates), fish will continue to be,
and thus the SMP2 policy has the potential to prevent the TraC
from attaining Good Ecological Potential.
Bembridge
Harbour
Lagoon
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3A (part)
Embankment
Road
PU3A.4 Embankment
Road
HTL HTL HTL The River Eastern Yar’s water levels are managed with a set of
sluice gates that enter Bembridge Harbour in the north-west
corner, upstream of the sluice the river is a FWB and therefore a
HTL policy will ensure that the Environmental Objectives for
the River Eastern Yar FWB are not compromised. This is also
the case for the Bembridge Lagoons TraC that exists landward
of the Embankment Road. These brackish lagoons are sensitive
to salinity changes and diffuse pollution and support an
internationally diverse biological community, with species such
as the starlet sea anemone Nematostella vectensis. The BQEs
of this water body will be maintained in with a HTL policy and it
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 46 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
is unlikely there will be deterioration in the Ecological
Potential of the TraCs as a result of the policy in PU3A.4.
Eastern Yar
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3A (part)
Bembridge
Point
PU3A.5
Bembridge
Point
MR HTL HTL The frontage at Bembridge Point includes the south-eastern spit
that protects the opposite side of the harbour to The Duver. The
existing line of defence will not be maintained in the first epoch
but a new line of defence to protect property etc will be put in
place by the second epoch. This will allow the coastline to
undergo more natural coastal processes around the spit,
particularly in the 1st and 2
nd epochs. In the 3
rd epoch, there may
be coastal squeeze against the aligned defences. Therefore, in
the short to medium term the SMP2 policy is unlikely to
result in deterioration in the Ecological Potential of the
Solent TraC.
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3B.1
Bembridge NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3B (part)
Bembridge
and Land End
PU3B.2
Lane End HTL HTL MR
Bembridge Point to Whitecliff Bay comprises diverse Chalk and
limestone rocky intertidal ledges, with a number of large lagoons
supporting seagrass beds, kelps and red algae communities.
The policy of a combination of HTL and MR along the Lane End
to Foreland frontage may not necessarily keep up with sea level
rise. There is potential for there to be coastal squeeze and thus
loss of the rocky intertidal ledges, as well as the extent of the
seagrass beds being affected with increasing depths of the
surrounding subtidal areas. The benthic invertebrate, fish,
macroalgae and angiosperms (seagrass) BQEs could therefore
be affected in the short to medium term until the coastline
adjusts to more natural coastal processes and soft coastal
management strategies. However, it is unlikely that this will
affect the overall potential to meet Good Ecological
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 47 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
Potential for the Solent TraC water body by 2027.
PU3B.3
Foreland MR MR MR N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3B.4
Foreland
Fields
HTL HTL MR N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3B.5
Whitecliff Bay NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3C.1 Culver Cliff
and Red Cliff
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3C.2 Yaverland and
Eastern Yar
Valley
HTL HTL HTL N/A ���� ���� ����
PU3C.3 Sandown and
Shanklin
HTL HTL HTL N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight
East (Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 3B (part)
Foreland to
Whitecliff Bay
MAN 3C
Culver Cliff to
Luccombe
PU3C.4 Luccombe NAI NAI NAI
As stated above Bembridge Point to Whitecliff Bay comprises
diverse Chalk and limestone rocky intertidal ledges. The policy
combination of HTL and MR for the Foreland and Foreland
Fields frontages may not necessarily keep up with sea level rise.
There is potential for there to be coastal squeeze and thus loss
of the rocky intertidal ledges, as well as the extent of the
seagrass beds being affected with increasing depths of the
surrounding subtidal areas. The benthic invertebrate, fish,
macroalgae and angiosperm (seagrass) BQEs could therefore
be affected in the short to medium term until the coastline
adjusts to more natural coastal processes and soft coastal
management strategies. However, as on the Bembridge and
Lane End frontage it is unlikely that this will affect the
overall potential to meet Good Ecological Potential for the
Isle of Wight East TraC water body by 2015.
The eroding maritime cliffs from Whitecliff Bay around to
Yaverland are of geological importance for their exposed rock
sequences. A NAI policy along this frontage will ensure that
coastal processes continue to erode back both the rock
sequences and the species they support, therefore maintaining
contribution to Good Ecological Potential for the Isle of
Wight East coastal water body.
The coastline from Yaverland to Luccombe Chine comprises
protected sandy beaches, with the subtidal clay exposures and
mudstone reefs that support faunal turf communities. The
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 48 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
frontage of Shanklin and Sandown needs to remain defended to
protect the important coastal communities from tidal flooding and
coastal erosion. The HTL policy may cause a loss of the sandy
intertidal area through sea level rise but the subtidal clay
exposures and the mudstone reefs should remain unaffected. In
addition, the NAI policy intention for Luccombe should not affect
the BQEs. The BQEs for this water body as a whole are not
likely to be affected; hence it is unlikely there will be
deterioration in the Ecological Potential of the Isle of Wight
East TraC water body as a result of the SMP2 policy.
PU4A.1 Dunnose NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU4A.2
Ventnor &
Bonchurch
(Monk’s Bay to
Steephill
Cove)
HTL HTL HTL
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU4B.1
St. Lawrence
Undercliff
NAI NAI NAI
N/A ���� ���� ����
PDZ4 Luccombe
to
Blackgang
Isle of Wight
East (Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 4A
Dunnose to
Bonchurch
MAN 4B (part)
St Lawrence
Undercliff to
Castlehaven
PU4B.2
Castlehaven
HTL HTL MR
The frontage from Luccombe to Castlehaven is a mixture of NAI
and HTL. Where the policy is NAI the coastal cliffs will carry on
eroding. However where the HTL policy is in place (in order to
protect people and property etc) the cliffs will not evolve
naturally.
At Ventnor and Bonchurch coastal habitats here are already
squeezed between town infrastructure and sea defences, with
only small sections of cliff habitat remaining. The HTL policy will
continue to prevent the natural erosion of the coastal cliff line
and further exposure of the nearshore reefs. BQEs associated
with the nearshore reefs should not be affected, but BQEs
associated with the ever decreasing intertidal along this water
body may be affected in the long term. As at Ventnor and
Bonchurch, the policy of HTL at Castlehaven could affect the
intertidal BQEs, however, this is a small section of coast and
unlikely to have an overall significant effect, particularly since a
MR policy will be reviewed for the third epoch if possible, which
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 49 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
is when there would be most effects on the BQEs. Overall, even
though the SMP2 policy for PU4A.2 has the potential to
affect the local BQEs it is unlikely to affect the coastal water
body as a whole and therefore, there is unlikely to be any
deterioration in the Ecological Potential of the Isle of Wight
East TraC water body as a result of the SMP2 policy.
Furthermore, there is potential here for the frontages with NAI to
encroach into the frontages with a hold the line policy as the
cliffs erode and sea levels rise on either side of those frontages
with maintained sea defences.
There are two SPZs close to coast above Ventnor (PU4A.2) and
Castlehaven (PU4B.2), which could be at risk of saline intrusion.
However, since the SMP2 policies for these sections of coast
are HTL thus preventing erosion of the cliff landward towards the
SPZs, the risk of SMP2 policies resulting in deterioration of
the aquifer is low.
Dorset /
Hampshore
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 4B (part)
ST. Cather
PU4B.3
St. Catherine’s
and Blackgang
NAI NAI NAI
This area of coastline comprises high coastal cliffs with rocky
intertidal foreshore and subtidal rocky reefs at the foot of the
cliffs. The intertidal and subtidal reefs provide for a diverse
habitat, in particular for macroalgae, which provide food sources
and shelter for fish. The frontage from St. Catherine’s to
Blackgang has a policy of NAI, which allows the coastal cliffs to
carry on eroding naturally and the BQEs will not be adversely
affected, therefore maintaining contribution to Good
Ecological Potential for the Dorset / Hampshire TraC water
body.
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 50 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
PDZ5 Blackgang
to
beginning
of
Freshwate
r Bay
Dorset /
Hampshore
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 5
Central Chale
Bay to Afton
Down
PU5.1 Central Chale
Bay to Afton
Down
NAI NAI NAI The intertidal area along this frontage is formed from landslide
debris and exposed clay bedrock, and sandstone and chert
boulders that provide a diverse range of intertidal habitats and
are of high marine conservation interest. The subtidal harbours a
range of rocky reef types, including sandstone, clay/mudstone,
greensand and chalk bedrock, which support diverse red algal
communities and kelp beds. There are also large ecologically
important littoral sea caves in the chalk cliffs around Compton
Chine that host rare algal species specific to this type of habitat.
The policy of NAI will allow the cliffs to naturally evolve and the
BQEs will not be adversely affected, therefore maintaining
contribution to Good Ecological Potential for the Dorset /
Hampshire TraC water body.
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6A.1 Freshwater
Bay
HTL HTL HTL N/A ���� ���� ���� PDZ6
Freshwate
r Bay to
Port la
Salle
Dorset /
Hampshore
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 6A (part)
Freshwater
Bay to
Needles
PU6A.2
(part)
Tennyson
Down, Alum
Bay and
Headon
Warren
NAI NAI NAI
The coastline from Freshwater Bay and around the north side of
the Needles includes an extensive tide-exposed chalk reef that
supports a diverse range of species both in the intertidal and
subtidal, whilst the cliffs above support ecologically important
chalk plants (e.g. lowland heath and acid grasses) and
invertebrates. The reefs are some of the most important subtidal
chalk reefs in Britain, with the only known Chalk subtidal caves
in the UK.
As for other sections of coastline on the Isle of Wight this
frontage is a mixture of NAI so allowing the cliffs to evolve and
erode naturally and also HTL in order to protect communities
and important infrastructure. Again the potential for the frontages
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 51 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
that are allowed to erode to outflank those that are protected
exists.
A HTL policy at Freshwater Bay has the potential to affect some
of the BQEs within the Dorset / Hampshire coastal water body
such as invertebrates within the subtidal sediments and
macroalgae on the subtidal reefs. However, the overall effect is
unlikely to deteriorate the TraC water body as a whole, because
it is such a small area that is defended, therefore the SMP2
policy is unlikely to cause any changes to the Dorset /
Hampshire TraC’s present quality of Good Ecological
Potential.
PU6A.2
(part)
Tennyson
Down, Alum
Bay and
Headon
Warren
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6B.1 Totland and
Colwell
HTL HTL HTL N/A x ���� ����
PU6B.2 Central
Colwell Bay
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6B.3 Fort Albert HTL HTL NAI N/A x ���� ����
PU6B.4 Fort Victoria
Country Park
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6B.5 Fort Victoria
and Norton
HTL NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 6A (part)
Needles to
Alum Bay
MAN 6B
Totland to
Norton
MAN 6C (part)
Norton Spit PU6C.1 Norton Spit
(part)
HTL HTL HTL
Where the HTL policy is in place for this PDZ within the Solent
TraC (PU’s 6B.1, 6B.3 and 6B.5) the already narrow tide-
exposed reef will become more sub-tidal and not be replaced by
new intertidal over time. This is really only a risk at Totland and
Colwell, as at Fort Albert and Fort Victoria and Norton the aim is
to allow the coastline to develop naturally in the long term once
the life of the defences have exceeded. The BQEs could
therefore be only adversely affected along Totland and Colwell
in the medium to long term as the sea levels start to significantly
rise and completely submerge any intertidal reefs. The overall
policy along this frontage will result in several increasingly
fragmented stretches of defences separated by lengths of
rapidly retreating coastal cliffs. This could result in the
Ecological Potential of this TraC (Solent) water body from
failing to meet Good Ecological Potential by 2027. N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 52 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
PU6C.1 Norton Spit
(part)
HTL HTL HTL The HTL policy for all three epochs at Norton Spit will ensure
that the nature of the sheltered nature of the estuary is
maintained, thus protecting the BQEs landward of the spit (i.e.
macrophytes). Seaward of the spit is a sandy single intertidal
area, with a vegetated shingle upper foreshore, which is being
maintained by the groynes themselves.
N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6C.2 Western Yar
Estuary - west
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6C.3 The Causeway HTL HTL HTL N/A x ���� ����
PU6C.4 Western Yar
Estuary - east
NAI NAI NAI N/A ���� ���� ����
PU6C.5 Thorley Brook
and Barnfields
Stream
HTL NAI NAI N/A ���� x ����
Western Yar
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 6C (part)
Norton Spit to
Alum Bay
MAN 6B
Totland to
Norton
MAN 6C (part)
Norton Spit to
Port la Salle PU6C.6 Yarmouth to
Port la Salle
HTL HTL HTL
The Westen Yar is a wide-bottomed valley type estuary with
relatively steeply sloping margins which has extensive saltmarsh
(angiosperm) and mudflats. The mouth of the estuary is
protected by Norton Spit, which is presently defended from
overtopping and migrating landwards by wooden groynes.
There are three FWBs leading into the estuary, the Western Yar,
Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream. There is a combination of
HTL policy to protect the community of Yarmouth and its
important infrastructure links with the mainland and NAI policy to
allow the estuary to develop more naturally.
The saltmarsh habitats within the estuary are likely to be
sensitive to future climate change and sea-level rise unless
vertical accretion can compensate. Where there are HTL policies
within the estuary, i.e. at the Causeway and around Yarmouth to
Port la Salle there will be coastal squeeze as the sea levels rise,
which will affect the BQEs of the Western Yar TraC (i.e. benthic
invertebrates, angiosperms and fish, since natural migration
inland will not be able to occur. The HTL policy will however
ensure that the environmental objectives of the Western Yar
estuary are not compromised, since with sea level rise the
lower and upper levels of the FWB would be flooded right back
N/A x ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 53 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
to the source at Freshwater Bay.
The policy of NAI at Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream
(PU6C.5) in the second and third epochs will allow saline
intrusion up these FWBs rather than to continue to unsustainably
hold tidal flooding by the defences that are presently there. The
HTL policy in the first epoch will be to allow the gradual
management of the flood levels so that there is an adaptation of
habitats is gradual over time. Even though there will be saline
intrusion into previously freshwater habitats of the FWBs, the
SMP2 will however help in attaining some of the environmental
objectives of the Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream FWBs, in
particular the former; these include ‘re-opening existing culverts’
and ‘preserve and where possible enhance ecological value of
marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone’. Overall, the
SMP2 policies will have an affect on some of the BQEs within
the Western Yar TraC, though with the NAI policy at Thorley
Brook and Barnfields Stream the estuary will be able to adapt
more naturally with climate change and help to attain the
environmental objectives of the Western Yar TraC to ensure
its meets surface water Good Ecological Potential by 2027.
PDZ7 Port la
Salle to
west of
Gurnard
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
PU7.1 Bouldnor
Copse and
Hamstead
NAI NAI NAI The coastline from Bouldnor Copse to Hamstead comprises
geologically important soft cliffs with the intertidal area littered
with debris from semi-circular landslides and exposed clay
bedrock. The NAI policy will ensure that coastal processes
continue to erode these cliffs and supplying sediment downdrift,
so as to maintain morphological features elsewhere within the
coastal water body, such as the spits at the mouth of Newtown
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 54 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
MAN 7 (part)
Estuary. Therefore, the SMP2 policy will not therefore cause
any detrimental changes to the Solent TraC that would
result in it not meeting Good Ecological Potential 2015.
Newtown
River
(Transitional)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 7 (part)
PU7.2 Newtown
Estuary
NAI NAI NAI Newtown Harbour comprises a number of tidal creeks leading to
a number of freshwater creeks and streams (though these will
not be affected by changes in 1 in 1000 year flood zone from the
present to 2110). The estuary area includes extensive areas of
estuarine mudflat, saltmarsh, coastal grazing marsh and saline
lagoons that support internationally important overwintering and
breeding bird species. The BQEs within the estuary include
macroalgae, benthic invertebrates, angiosperms (saltmarsh,
coastal grazing marsh and seagrass beds) and fish.
The policy of NAI for the entirety of the estuary will ensure that
the SMP policy, neither deteriorates the Moderate
Ecological Status of the Newtown Estuary TraC, nor will it
cause failure to meet Good Ecological Status in 2027.
N/A ���� ���� ����
Solent
(Coastal)
Relevant
Management
Units:
MAN 7 (part)
PU7.3 Thorness Bay
and southern
Gurnard Bay
NAI NAI NAI Thorness Bay and southern Gurnard Bay comprise considerable
areas of soft maritime cliffs with large expanses of intertidal sand
and shingle interspersed with rocky outcrops or ledges
composed of Bembridge Limestone. There are also two small
areas of brackish marsh (one known as Thorness Marshes),
which are at the coastal margins of Little Thorness Stream and
Great Thorness Stream, both FWBs; the former of Moderate
Ecological Status and the latter of Moderate Ecological Potential.
The policy of NAI will ensure natural coastal processes continue
to erode the coastline, supplying both important sediment to the
N/A ���� ���� ����
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 55 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Policy Plan Environmental
Objectives met?
Policy Development
Zone
Water Body
and Relevant
Management
Units
Policy Unit
2025
2055
2105
WFD Assessment of Deterioration
WFD1
WFD2
WFD3
WFD4
sandy foreshores and exposing further ledges for macroalgae
and their associated communties to colonise in pace with sea
level rise. As sea levels rise, the extent of saline intrusion up the
FWBs will increase, though at a gradual rate so that BQEs can
adapt over time. Therefore, the SMP2 policy will not cause
any detrimental changes to the Solent TraC that would
result in it not meeting Good Ecological Potential 2015. In
addition, the environmental objectives of the two FWBs will
not be prevented as a result of the NAI policy.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 56 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Environmental Objective WFD3
J3.3.5 There are no freshwater lakes within the SMP2 area, though there are a number of rivers
that lie within the 1 in 1000 year zone. The saline intrusion to these rivers will increase
over the next 100 years as sea levels rise and tidal flooding is able to extend further
upstream. There are two PDZs that have the potential to fail to meet Environmental
Objective WFD3 (no changes which permanently prevent or compromise the
Environmental Objectives being met in other water bodies). The first is in PDZ one, where
there are two FWBs (Dodnor Creek and Alverstone Stream) that flow into the Medina
Estuary, though only the environmental objectives of Dodnor Creek are likely to be affected
by the NAI policy. Dodnor Creek is on the west bank and is protected by council
maintained defences and a sluice system. The policy of NAI will allow the Dodnor Creek to
be restored to the natural tidal state before the defences and sluices were in place,
enabling greatly improved passage of migratory fish, though the freshwater BQEs
(macrophytes) will be affected in the short term until the system adapts to brackish
environment in the lower reaches.
J3.3.6 The second PDZ that will affect FWBs is within the Western Yar Estuary (PDZ6), where
there is currently a sluice at Thorley Brook, which retains upstream freshwater levels. The
SMP2 policy of HTL in the first epoch, followed by NAI in the second and third epochs
means managing the gradual saline intrusion of the existing sluice system, which would
allow the natural realignment of the channel, and result in habitat creation (e.g. intertidal
sand and mud flats and saltmarsh), though significant habitat loss of freshwater BQEs.
This will result in permanent change to Thorley Brook and Barnsfield Stream, however it
would be restoring the Western Yar estuary and the lower reaches of these FWBs to the
natural tidal state before the defence at Yarmouth Mill was in place. It would also enable
greatly improved passage for migrating fish, and therefore will facilitate the Environmental
Objectives for the Western Yar transitional water body to be met.
Environmental Objective WFD4
J3.3.7 SMP2 policies for all seven PDZs meet Environmental Objective WFD4 (no changes that
will cause failure to meet good groundwater status or result in a deterioration of
groundwater status). All four of the Ground Water Bodies (GWBs) on the Isle of Wight
have been classified as at Good Status and there is no current evidence of saline intrusion
to groundwater bodies. Any abstractions within these groundwater bodies are located a
significant distance from the coast which, together with the seaward direction of
groundwater flow, means that the risk of deterioration in status due to SMP policy is
considered to be low. The only GWB that has Special Protection Zones close to the coast
is within PDZ 4 for the Southern Chalk Downs GWB, however, the SMP2 policy for the
proximate seaward frontage is HTL, and therefore ensures that coastal erosion over the
next 100 years will not result in saline intrusion from encroaching cliffs.
Water Framework Directive Summary Statements
J3.3.8 A water body by water body summary of achievement (or otherwise) of the Environmental
Objectives for the SMP2 policies is shown in Assessment Table 4. This table indicates
that completion of a Water Framework Directive Summary Statement is necessary for five
of the water bodies. These Summary Statements can be found in Tables 5a to 5e.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 57 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Assessment Table 4 Summary of achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives and RBMP Mitigation Measures for each water body in the Isle of Wight SMP2 area
(colour shading relates to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Environmental Objectives met? Water body (and
relevant PDZ) WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 WFD Summary
Statement required?
Achievement of Any
South East RBMP
Mitigation
Measures?
Details on how the specific South East RBMP
Mitigation Measures have been attained
Solent
(coastal)
(PDZs 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7)
N/A x
(PDZ 2,
PDZ 6)
���� ���� Yes – Environmental
Objective WFD2 may
not be met in PDZs 2
and 6 under SMP2
policies.
Yes (partly) – there
were three relevant
mitigation measures
for this water body.
These were partly
attained at some
scale.
• Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or
replacement with soft engineering solution - Lane
End (PU3B.2) near Bembridge. HTL for the short to
medium with the view to gradually reduce the influence
of hard defences and implement soft engineering
solutions to protect the landward assets.
• Managed realignment of flood defence - not wholly
incorporated but NAI at Gurnard Luck (PU1A.1) will
result in the flooding the lower reaches of small valley,
thereby creating mudflat and saltmarsh habitats.
• Preserving and where possible enhance ecological
value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian
zone -. Gurnard Luck (PU1A.1) will result in the flooding
the lower reaches of small valley, thereby enhancing the
ecological value of mudflat (benthic invertebrates) and
saltmarsh (angiosperm) habitats.
Medina
(transitional)
(PDZ 1)
N/A x
(PDZ 1)
x
(PDZ 1)
���� Yes – Environmental
Objectives WFD2 and
WFD3 may not be
met in PDZ1 under
SMP2 policies.
There were no
relevant measures to
the SMP2.
N/A
Wootton Creek
(transitional)
(PDZ 2)
N/A x
(PDZ 2)
���� ���� Yes – Environmental
Objective WFD2 may
not be met in PDZ2
Yes (partly) - Two
out of the three
relevant mitigation
• Managed realignment of defences - MR of the sluices
at Wootton Bridge with the Old Mill Pond (PU2B.3). This
policy will allow saline intrusion further up the creek into
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 58 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Environmental Objectives met? Water body (and
relevant PDZ) WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 WFD Summary
Statement required?
Achievement of Any
South East RBMP
Mitigation
Measures?
Details on how the specific South East RBMP
Mitigation Measures have been attained
under SMP2 policies. measures for this
water body have
been attained by the
revision in SMP
policy.
the Old Mill Pond, thus enhancing the existing poor
quality mudflats and saltmarsh habitats (benthic
invertebrate, saltmarsh and fish BQEs) by allowing
regular tidal inundation.
• Preserve and where possible enhance ecological
value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian
zone - MR polic at Wootton Bridge with the Old Mill Pond
(PU2B.3).
• Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or
replacement with soft engineering solution – Not
considered within the SMP2. Specific mitigation measure
for implementation in individual schemes resulting from
SMP2 policies.
Eastern Yar
(transitional)
(PDZ 3)
N/A x
(PDZ 3)
���� ���� Yes – Environmental
Objectives WFD2 and
WFD3 may not be
met in PDZ2 under
SMP2 policies.
Yes (partly) - Only
two out of the six
relevant mitigation
measures for this
water body were
partly attained.
• Changes to beach control – MR of The Duver in the 3rd
epoch (PU3A.2) will allow more natural functioning of the
spit and sand dunes.
• Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats
(channel alteration) – not considered.
• Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices,
weirs, beach control, etc. – Considered for the MR of
Embankment Road (PU3A.4) but was not implemented
(refer to Assessment Table 5d).
• Structures or other mechanisms in place and
managed to enable fish to access waters upstream
and downstream of the impounding works - the
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 59 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Environmental Objectives met? Water body (and
relevant PDZ) WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 WFD Summary
Statement required?
Achievement of Any
South East RBMP
Mitigation
Measures?
Details on how the specific South East RBMP
Mitigation Measures have been attained
culverts under Embankment Road were a consideration
but it was not practicable. .
• Re-opening existing culverts – the culverts under
Embankment Road were a consideration but it was not
practicable .
• Remove obsolete structure – not considered but must
be considered when implementing individual schemes
resulting from SMP2 policies.
Old Mill Ponds N/A ���� ���� ���� No - not necessary as
delivery of
Environmental
Objectives is likely to
be supported by the
proposed SMP
policies.
No - There are two
relevant mitigation
measures for this
water body. Neither
has been
implemented within
the SMP2 policies.
• Operational and structural changes to locks, sluices,
weirs, beach control, etc. – the causeway will continue
to be defended, which will retain the Old Mill Ponds as
they are at present. No plan to change the sluices or
weirs. When the defences need to be maintained at the
end of the 1st epoch the project level must consider this
mitigation measure to ensure sufficient fish can pass
through into the Old Mill Ponds.
• Remove obsolete structures – must be considered
when old defences are maintained.
Bembridge Harbour
Lagoon (transitional)
(PDZ 3)
N/A ���� ���� ���� No - not necessary as
delivery of
Environmental
Objectives is likely to
be supported by the
proposed SMP
policies.
There were no
relevant measures to
the SMP2 for this
water body.
N/A
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 60 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Environmental Objectives met? Water body (and
relevant PDZ) WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 WFD Summary
Statement required?
Achievement of Any
South East RBMP
Mitigation
Measures?
Details on how the specific South East RBMP
Mitigation Measures have been attained
Isle of Wight East
(coastal)
(PDZs 3 & 4)
N/A ���� ���� ���� No - not necessary as
delivery of
Environmental
Objectives is likely to
be supported by the
proposed SMP
policies.
N/A - There are two
relevant mitigation
measures for this
water body, though
both are already in
place.
• Bank rehabilitation / reprofiling (already in place).
• Remove obsolete structure (already in place).
Dorset/Hampshire
(coastal)
(PDZs 4, 5 & 6)
N/A ���� ���� ���� No - not necessary as
delivery of
Environmental
Objectives is likely to
be supported by the
proposed SMP
policies.
There were no
relevant measures to
the SMP2 for this
water body.
N/A
Western Yar
(transitional)
(PDZ 6)
N/A x
(PDZ 3)
x
(PDZ 6)
���� Yes – Environmental
Objectives WFD2 and
WFD3 may not be
met in PDZ2 under
SMP2 policies.
There were no
relevant measures to
the SMP2 for this
water body.
Yes - There were
however, three
mitigation measures
for Thorley Brook
FWB (GB6060) that
have been attained
by the SMP2 policies.
• Retain marginal aquatic and riparian habitats
(channel alteration) - MR/NAI policy at Thorley Brook
and Barnfields Stream (PU6C.5) will result in a more
natural functioning riparian system, particularly in the
transition between the freshwater aspects of these two
small rivers and the brackish nature of the Eastern Yar
estuary.
• Preserve, and where possible, enhance ecological
value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian
zone – MR/NAI policy at Thorley Brook and Barnfields
Stream (PU6C.5) will result in the flooding the lower
reaches of the valley floor of these two rivers, thereby
enhancing the historic ecological value of marginal
aquatic habitat, mainly of saltmarsh and grazing marsh
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 61 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Environmental Objectives met? Water body (and
relevant PDZ) WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 WFD Summary
Statement required?
Achievement of Any
South East RBMP
Mitigation
Measures?
Details on how the specific South East RBMP
Mitigation Measures have been attained
(angiosperms) habitats.
• Re-opening existing culverts - MR/NAI policy at
Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream (PU6C.5) will open
up the existing culvert to allow the slow gradual saline
inundation until the valley naturally floods without any
culvert or defences in the medium to long term.
Newtown River
(transitional)
(PDZ 7)
N/A ���� ���� ���� No - not necessary as
delivery of
Environmental
Objectives is likely to
be supported by the
proposed SMP
policies.
There were no
relevant measures to
the SMP2 for this
water body.
N/A
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 62 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Table 5a WFD Summary Statement for the Solent coastal water body (colour shading relates to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
Have all practicable mitigation measures
been incorporated into the preferred SMP
policies that affect this water body in order
to mitigate the adverse impacts on the
status of the water body? If not, then list
mitigation measures that could be required.
Mitigation measures incorporated into SMP policies:
• The proposed action in the South East RBMP for “managed realignment of flood defence” has been
considered and though not incorporated into SMP2 policies along the length of this coastal water, the policy
of NAI at Gurnard Luck (PU1A.1) in the epochs 2 and 3 will result in the flooding the lower reaches of small
valley, thereby creating mudflat and saltmarsh habitats. This policy, however, needs to be investigated
further, and therefore, the Action Plan in the final SMP document must include a specific programme of
actions for investigations, monitoring and consultation to improve the predictions and feasibility of intertidal
developments, whilst best maintaining the community of Gurnard. This policy would also be incorporating
the proposed action of “preserving and where possible enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic
habitat, banks and riparian zone” that is set out in the South East RBMP.
• Another proposed action in the South East RBMP for this coastal water body is the “removal of hard bank
reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution”. This option has been proposed
for Lane End (PU3B.2) near Bembridge, which covers part of this coastal water body. The intention is to
HTL for the short to medium with the view to gradually reduce the influence of hard defences and
implement soft engineering solutions to protect the landward assets.
• Finally, there are areas of coastline that are presently defended and the SMP2 policy is to defend until the
end of the life of the defences, and from then on to allow natural coastal processes to prevail, which would
therefore benefit the BQEs (such as macroalgae, benthic invertebrates and angiosperms). For example,
this is the case at East Cowes Outer Esplanade and around into Osborne Bay (PDZs 1 and 2), along the
Quarr and Binstead frontage (PDZ 3), and from Fort Victoria to Norton (PDZ 6).
• Specific and generic mitigation measures for implementation of individual schemes resulting from SMP2
policies (i.e. how NAI will proceed at Dodnor Creek) will need to be considered when those schemes go
through the planning process, and any environmental issues (including assessment under WFD) regarding
the detail of scheme implementation will be dealt with at this time. This should include consideration of any
suitable measures in the RBMP that are relevant to individual schemes (e.g. improvements to fish passage,
increasing in-channel morphological diversity, use of soft engineering solutions etc). The Action Plan in the
final SMP document must include a requirement for all schemes resulting from SMP2 policies to consider
those mitigation measures listed in the South East RBMP Programme of Measures.
Solent
Can it be shown that the reasons for
selecting the preferred SMP policies are
The policy of maintaining the defences (i.e. HTL) at Fishbourne, Seagrove Bay, Totland and Colwell Bay, and
Fort Albert are required to preserve the integrity of residential property and infrastructure (ferry and road), which
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 63 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
reasons of overriding public interest (ROPI)
and/or the benefits to the environment and
to society of achieving the Environmental
Objectives are outweighed by the benefits
of the preferred SMP policies to human
health, to the maintenance of health and
safety or to sustainable development?
are reasons of overriding public interest and benefits. Refer to the ‘Policy Statements’ for further detail on the
economic viability (cost/benefit analysis) and sustainability of the preferred SMP policies can be found in
Appendix H (Economics Appraisal / Sensitivity Testing) of this SMP2 document.
Have other significantly better options for
the SMP policies been considered? Can it
be demonstrated that those better
environmental policy options which were
discounted were done so on the grounds of
being either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly?
There are no significantly better environmental policy options available, since policies of no active intervention or
managed realignment along the frontages at Fishbourne, Seagrove Bay, Totland and Colwell Bay and Fort Albert
would result in the loss of the communities from coastal erosion rather than coastal flooding, as well as the
nationally important transport link to the mainland. Advancing the line is unrealistic, unnecessary and it would be
working against the natural processes at work in these areas, thus resulting in further intertidal loss (i.e. rocky
shores and mudflats).
As part of the SMP process various policy packages were developed for each PDZ and were fully appraised
against SMP Objectives (which includes an objective on adaptation through supporting and enhancing nature
conservation value of the Medina). Further detail on the Policy Development and Appraisal can be found in
Appendix E and the Preferred Policy Appraisal can be found in Appendix G of this SMP2 document.
Can it be demonstrated that the preferred
SMP policies do not permanently exclude
or compromise the achievement of the
objectives of the Directive in water bodies
within the same River Basin District that
are outside of the SMP2 area?
The Environment Agency Flood Map application and Groundwater maps have been consulted to check for
landward freshwater and groundwater bodies that potentially could be impacted by SMP2 policies. It is
considered unlikely that any groundwater bodies will be impacted as a result of the SMP2 policies as there is no
current evidence of saline intrusion (see Assessment Table 3 and Section J3.3). There are no SMP2 policies
within this water body that have the potential to affect landward FWBs.
SMP2 policies for PDZs in the adjacent TraC water bodies (Isle of Wight East, Dorset / Hampshire, Western Yar,
Newtown River, Bembridge Harbour Lagoon, Eastern Yar, Medina and Wootton Creek) have also been assessed
within this report for potential to cause deterioration in Ecological Status / Potential.
Can it be shown that there are no other
over-riding issues that should be
considered (e.g. designated sites,
recommendations of the Appropriate
This water body includes part of the Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton SPA and Ramsar sites
and Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek SSSI, and several classes of UKBAP habitat (in particular, mudflats and
saltmarsh). The intent of the SMP2 policy within PDZs 2 and 6 within this water body is to defend the integrity
the Fishbourne ferry link, Ryde and the surrounding communities, and Totland and Colwell Bay, whilst allowing
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 64 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
Assessment)? the coastline to develop naturally where there are high nature conservation interests or it is not economically
feasible to maintain defences. The SMP2 policies have the potential to result in some degree of losses, and only
marginal gains, of designated habitat and this has been assessed within the Habitats Regulations Assessment in
Appendix I of this SMP2.
Table 5b WFD Summary Statement for the Medina transitional water body (colour shading relates to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
Medina
Have all practicable mitigation measures
been incorporated into the preferred SMP
policies that affect this water body in order
to mitigate the adverse impacts on the
status of the water body? If not, then list
mitigation measures that could be required.
Mitigation measures incorporated into SMP policies:
• More knowledge is needed to confirm the likelihood of the possible loss of mudflat and saltmarsh habitat in
PDZ1. Therefore, the Action Plan in the final SMP document will include a specific programme of
actions for monitoring, consultation and studies to improve predictions of intertidal developments and
understanding of the impact of loss of foreshore from flood defence on habitats. The increased knowledge
will inform the timing, location and extent of possible realignments to optimise defence sustainability and to
compensate for the expected deterioration of intertidal habitats.
• The proposed action in the South East River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for “managed realignment of
flood defence” needs to be investigated further within the Medina Estuary, based on the findings of the
possible loss of mudflat and saltmarsh (for example, a possible site for MR could be south of the sewage
works on the eastern bank to allow the widening of the estuary). However, the SMP has incorporated this
objective to some degree by having a NAI policy for much of the central eastern and western banks of the
Medina to allow natural migration of the estuary where there is room to do so (i.e. within the confinements
of the natural topography of the valley). In particular, the SMP policy would result in the realignment of the
mouth of Dodnor Creek, which is currently defended, though this would result in failing the environmental
objectives of this FWB because of the resulting permanent change in morphology, even if it is back to its
natural state.
• A second proposed action in the South East RBMP for “removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or
replacement with soft engineering solutions” should be considered for where the SMP policy is NAI, so that
when defences have exceeded their life that they are removed rather than left to deteriorate further and
continue to impede natural processes.
• Specific mitigation measures for implementation of individual schemes resulting from SMP2 policies (i.e.
how NAI will proceed at Dodnor Creek) must be considered when those schemes go through the planning
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 65 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
process, and any environmental issues (including assessment under WFD) regarding the detail of scheme
implementation will be dealt with at this time. This must include consideration of the suitable measures in
the South East RBMP that are relevant to individual schemes (e.g. improvements to fish passage,
increasing in-channel morphological diversity, use of soft engineering solutions etc; refer to Assessment
Table 2 for the applicable measures for this water body). The Action Plan in the final SMP document
must include a requirement for all schemes resulting from SMP2 policies to consider those mitigation
measures listed in the South East RBMP Programme of Measures.
Can it be shown that the reasons for
selecting the preferred SMP policies are
reasons of overriding public interest (ROPI)
and/or the benefits to the environment and
to society of achieving the Environmental
Objectives are outweighed by the benefits
of the preferred SMP policies to human
health, to the maintenance of health and
safety or to sustainable development?
The policy of maintaining the defences around Cowes, East Cowes and Newport Harbour is required to protect
important communities, nationally important infrastructure (e.g. ferry link with the mainland, historic landfill sites),
commercial assets (e.g. West Medina Mills Wharf), and recreational (e.g. Island Harbour Marina, Cowes Yacht
Club) and heritage assets. This is necessary to ensure the continued role of these two communities at the either
end of the Medina Estuary.
Refer to the ‘Policy Statements’ for further detail on the economic viability (cost/benefit analysis) and
sustainability of the preferred SMP policies can be found in Appendix H (Economics Appraisal / Sensitivity
Testing) of this SMP2 document.
Have other significantly better options for
the SMP policies been considered? Can it
be demonstrated that those better
environmental policy options which were
discounted were done so on the grounds of
being either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly?
There are no significantly better environmental policy options available – NAI would immediately cease to defend
Cowes and East Cowes, particularly as the present defences need to be enhanced to protect the communities
from any future coastal flooding. This would also be case for Newport, which is the commercial centre for the Isle
of Wight. ATL at the entrance to the estuary is a possibility and was considered. However, this is technically
difficult, would require increasing flood defence management, cause the loss intertidal and subtidal habitat and
would potentially change the hydrodynamics and morphology of the Medina Estuary, thus affecting the BQEs to a
greater degree than a HTL policy. As part of the SMP process various policy packages were developed for each
PDZ and were fully appraised against SMP Objectives (which includes an objective on adaptation through
supporting and enhancing nature conservation value of the Medina). Further detail on the Policy Development
and Appraisal can be found in Appendix E and the Preferred Policy Appraisal can be found in Appendix G of
this SMP2 document.
Can it be demonstrated that the preferred
SMP policies do not permanently exclude
or compromise the achievement of the
objectives of the Directive in water bodies
The Environment Agency Flood Map application and Groundwater maps have been consulted to check for
landward freshwater and groundwater bodies that potentially could be impacted by SMP2 policies. It is
considered unlikely that any groundwater bodies will be impacted as a result of the SMP2 policies as there is no
current evidence of saline intrusion (see Assessment Table 3 and Sections J3.1 and J3.3). There is the
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 66 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
within the same River Basin District that
are outside of the SMP2 area?
potential for impacts on Dodnor Creek, a freshwater creek, if a policy of NAI is implemented. However, the
mitigation measures documented above should help to minimise any impacts on these water bodies, and by
allowing the opening up of the entrance of this FWB to the estuary it is reverting to a more natural and
sustainable environment. There will be no effect on the River Medina FWB, since the HTL policy at Newport
Harbour will ensure that saline intrusion further upstream does not occur, however any maintenance works to
these structures around Newport Harbour, including any sluices must be done so in accordance with the South
East RBMP mitigation measures to ensure Good Ecological Potential can be attained by 2027.
SMP2 policies for PDZs in the adjacent TraC water body (Solent) have also been assessed within this report for
potential to cause deterioration in Ecological Status / Potential.
Can it be shown that there are no other
over-riding issues that should be
considered (e.g. designated sites,
recommendations of the Appropriate
Assessment)?
This water body includes part of the Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site
and the Medina Estuary SSSI and mudflats that are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat. The intent of the
SMP2 policy is to allow the estuary to develop naturally, whilst defending the integrity of nationally and regionally
important communities, infrastructure and commercial assets. The SMP2 policies have the potential to result in
some degree of losses, and only marginal gains, of designated habitat and this has been assessed within the
Habitats Regulations Assessment in Appendix I of this SMP2.
Table 5c WFD Summary Statement for the Wootton Creek transitional water body (colour shading relates to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
Wootton Creek
Have all practicable mitigation measures
been incorporated into the preferred SMP
policies that affect this water body in order
to mitigate the adverse impacts on the
status of the water body? If not, then list
mitigation measures that could be required.
Mitigation measures incorporated into SMP policies:
• The proposed action in the South East RBMP for “managed realignment of flood defence” has been
considered and incorporated into SMP2 policies, with the MR of the sluices at Wootton Bridge with the Old
Mill Pond (PU2B.3). This policy would allow saline intrusion further up the creek into the Old Mill Pond, thus
enhancing the existing poor quality mudflats and saltmarsh habitats by allowing regular tidal inundation.
This policy, however, needs to be investigated further, and therefore, the Action Plan in the final SMP
document will include a specific programme of actions for modelling studies, monitoring and consultation to
improve the predictions of intertidal developments. This policy will also be incorporating the proposed
action of “preserving and where possible enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and
riparian zone” that is set out in the South East RBMP.
• The third proposed action in the South East RBMP for this transitional water body is the “removal of hard
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 67 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
bank reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution”. This option has not been
considered within the SMP2 but rather must be a specific mitigation measure for implementation, where
possible, of individual schemes resulting from SMP2 policies (i.e. for the community of Wootton Bridge),
and must be considered when those schemes go through the planning process. Any environmental issues
(including assessment under WFD) regarding the detail of scheme implementation will be dealt with at this
time. The Action Plan in the final SMP document must include a requirement for all schemes resulting
from SMP2 policies to consider those mitigation measures listed in the South East RBMP Programme of
Measures.
Can it be shown that the reasons for
selecting the preferred SMP policies are
reasons of overriding public interest (ROPI)
and/or the benefits to the environment and
to society of achieving the Environmental
Objectives are outweighed by the benefits
of the preferred SMP policies to human
health, to the maintenance of health and
safety or to sustainable development?
The policy of maintaining the defences around Wootton Bridge is required to protect the community and assets of
Wootton. The policy of HTL is also necessary to protect the transport link (A road) between Newport, East
Cowes and Ryde.
Refer to the ‘Policy Statements’ for further detail on the economic viability (cost/benefit analysis) and
sustainability of the preferred SMP policies can be found in Appendix H (Economics Appraisal / Sensitivity
Testing) of this SMP2 document.
Have other significantly better options for
the SMP policies been considered? Can it
be demonstrated that those better
environmental policy options which were
discounted were done so on the grounds of
being either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly?
There are no significantly better environmental policy options available – NAI would cease to defend the village of
Wootton. Advancing the line is unrealistic, unnecessary and it would be working against the natural processes at
work along estuary, thus resulting in further intertidal habitat loss.
As part of the SMP process various policy packages were developed for each PDZ and were fully appraised
against SMP Objectives (which includes an objective on adaptation through supporting and enhancing nature
conservation value of the Medina). Further detail on the Policy Development and Appraisal can be found in
Appendix E and the Preferred Policy Appraisal can be found in Appendix G of this SMP2 document.
Can it be demonstrated that the preferred
SMP policies do not permanently exclude
or compromise the achievement of the
objectives of the Directive in water bodies
within the same River Basin District that
are outside of the SMP2 area?
The Environment Agency Flood Map application, Groundwater maps and the South East RBMP have been
consulted to check for landward freshwater and groundwater bodies that potentially could be impacted by SMP2
policies. It is considered unlikely that the Solent Group GWB will be impacted as a result of the SMP2 policies as
there is no current evidence of saline intrusion (see Assessment Table 3 and Section J3.3). There is also no
potential for impacts on Blackbridge Brook, the freshwater water body that flows into the Old Mill Pond, since the
Old Mill pond currently experiences some degree of saline intrusion, since there are saltmarsh habitats extending
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 68 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
up beyond Firestone Copse (part of Briddlesford Copse SAC and SSSI), which is beyond the current and future
(2110) 1 in 1000 year flood zone.
SMP2 policies for PDZs in the adjacent TraC water body (Solent) have also been assessed within this report for
potential to cause deterioration in Ecological Status / Potential.
Can it be shown that there are no other
over-riding issues that should be
considered (e.g. designated sites,
recommendations of the Appropriate
Assessment)?
This water body includes part of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site, Ryde Sands and
Wootton Creek SSSI, The Old Mill Pond Wootton Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC), and adjacent to
the Briddlesford Copse SAC and Briddlesford Copses SSSI, as well as several classes of UKBAP habitat (in
particular mudflats). The intent of the SMP2 policy is to allow the estuary to develop as naturally as possible,
whilst defending the integrity of Wootton village. There will be mudflat habitat lost due to coastal squeeze, as sea
levels rise where there are defences protecting the community of Wootton. This habitat loss would need to be
compensated for by securing habitat through the Southern Regional Habitat Creation Programme (RHCP). The
habitat improvement and gains within the Old Mill Pond could contribute to the compensation requirements if
approved by Natural England. This has been assessed within the Habitats Regulations Assessment in
Appendix I of this SMP2.
Table 5d WFD Summary Statement for the Eastern Yar transitional water body (colour shading relates to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
Eastern Yar Have all practicable mitigation measures
been incorporated into the preferred SMP
policies that affect this water body in order
to mitigate the adverse impacts on the
status of the water body? If not, then list
mitigation measures that could be required.
Mitigation measures incorporated into SMP policies:
• The only South East RBMP mitigation measure implemented within the SMP2 is the managed realignment
of The Duver in the third epoch and the MR of Bembridge Point in the first epoch. This will allow the The
Duver to naturally realign and evolve in response to change in the estuary and sea level rise in the long
term, by eroding back and accreting sediments along the foreshore, and for Bembridge Point to erode back
naturally in the short to medium term. This will allow the entrance to Bembridge Harbour to develop more
naturally and ensure the continued accretion of sediments within the harbour. This action is in accordance
with the proposed action in the South East RBMP of “changes to beach control”.
• The proposed action in the South East RBMP for “operational and structural changes to locks, sluices,
weirs” was considered during the SMP2 policy planning process and examined in detail through the
Eastern Yar Flood and Erosion Management Strategy. However, there is no possibility within SMP2 to
change the water level management of the Eastern Yar valley by such means, as this would cause the loss
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 69 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
of a vast area (629 hectares) of internationally designated freshwater habitat.
• Specific mitigation measures for the maintenance of individual schemes resulting from SMP2 policies (i.e.
how HTL will proceed at Bembride Point) must be considered when those schemes go through the planning
process, and any environmental issues (including assessment under WFD) regarding the detail of scheme
implementation will be dealt with at this time. This must include consideration of any suitable measures in
the RBMP that are relevant to individual schemes (e.g. use of soft engineering solutions, removal of
obsolete structures, etc). The Action Plan in the final SMP document must include a requirement for all
schemes resulting from SMP2 policies to consider those mitigation measures listed in the South East
RBMP Programme of Measures, and which are listed in Assessment Tables 2 and 4.
Can it be shown that the reasons for
selecting the preferred SMP policies are
reasons of overriding public interest (ROPI)
and/or the benefits to the environment and
to society of achieving the Environmental
Objectives are outweighed by the benefits
of the preferred SMP policies to human
health, to the maintenance of health and
safety or to sustainable development?
The policy of hold the line of existing defences within Bembridge Harbour in PDZ 3 is required to protect the
communities at St Helens, maintain the brackish saltmarsh dominated habitat of the Old Mill Ponds (Transitional),
access along Embankment Road to the community of Bembridge and to maintain the freshwater habitats of
Brading Marshes that are of international importance for providing breeding, feeding and roosting for
internationally important wildfowl and wetland birds. Furthermore, by holding the line at Embankment Road it
prevents the tidal flooding of the middle and upper reaches of the Eastern Yar valley, which would have severe
flooding implications for the communities of Brading and Sandown. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear that the
HTL policy has been selected for reasons of overriding public interest, as well as for the natural environment.
Have other significantly better options for
the SMP policies been considered? Can it
be demonstrated that those better
environmental policy options which were
discounted were done so on the grounds of
being either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly?
There are no significantly better options available - as part of the SMP process various policy packages were
developed for each PDZ and were fully appraised against SMP Objectives (which includes an objective on
adaptation through supporting and enhancing nature conservation value of the Medina). Further detail on the
Policy Development and Appraisal can be found in Appendix E and the Preferred Policy Appraisal can be found
in Appendix G of this SMP2 document. Furthermore, the flood defence for the Eastern Yar valley has been
studied in detail in the Eastern Yar Flood and Erosion Management Strategy. A managed realignment option
may not be technically unfeasible and would certainly allow the valley to revert to a more natural and sustainable
state, however, it would be disproportionately costly to provide both damage costs to flooded properties and to
find compensation for 629 hectares of freshwater habitats.
Can it be demonstrated that the preferred
SMP policies do not permanently exclude
or compromise the achievement of the
The Environment Agency Flood Map application, groundwater maps and the South East RBMP have been
consulted to check for landward freshwater and groundwater bodies that could be impacted by the SMP2
policies. It is considered unlikely that any groundwater bodies (i.e. the Solent Group, Central Downs Chalk and
Lower Greensand GWBs) will be impacted as a result of the SMP2 policies as there is no current evidence of
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 70 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
objectives of the Directive in water bodies
within the same River Basin District that
are outside of the SMP2 area?
saline intrusion since they are designated as ‘Good Status’ (see Assessment Table 3 and Sections J3.1 and
J3.3). The preferred policy of HTL ensures that the environmental objectives of the two FWBs (River Eastern Yar
– GB5970 and GB6010) and transitional water body of Bembridge Harbour Lagoon (landward of Embankment
Road) are maintained. The policy intention of HTL along Embankment Road is that the River Eastern Yar valley
beyond the sluices at Bembridge Harbour (at the north-western end) will remain fresh water, and that the Old Mill
Ponds and Bembridge Lagoons remain transitional (via the sluices at the south-western end). The likelihood of
the river valley flooding from the sea will increase over the three epochs due to sea level rise and increased
storminess. At present there is no specific policy within the River Eastern Yar water body that could lead directly
to the possibility of saline intrusion into the river valley. However, this policy will need to be monitored to ensure
that the valley remains freshwater landward of its freshwater sluice if its moderate ecological potential is not to
deteriorate or its ability to gain Good Ecological Potential by 2027 is prevented. Decisions will need to be made
over time regarding this FWB and whether the sluice can remain where it is and Embankment Road can be
raised by 2030 (when it is predicted to be at risk of overtopping) or whether it will need to be moved further inland
as roll back along this frontage continues as sea levels rise.
SMP2 policies for PDZs in the adjacent TraC water bodies (Solent, Old Mill Pond, Bembridge Harbour Lagoons)
have also been assessed within this report for potential to cause deterioration in Ecological Status / Potential.
Can it be shown that there are no other
over-riding issues that should be
considered (e.g. designated sites,
recommendations of the Appropriate
Assessment)?
This water body includes part of the Solent and Southampton SPA and Ramsar site and Brading Marshes and St.
Helen’s Ledges SSSI, and several classes of UKBAP habitat. The intent of the SMP2 policy is to defend the
integrity of the communities of St Helen’s, Bembridge, Brading and Sandown, as well as transport links and very
importantly the nature conservation value of the Brading Marshes landward of Bembridge Harbour. The losses
and gains of designated habitat as a result of this policy are discussed in detail in the Habitats Regulations
Assessment in Appendix I of this SMP document.
Table 5e WFD Summary Statement for the Western Yar transitional water body (colour shading relates to the shaded water bodies in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2)
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
Western Yar Have all practicable mitigation measures
been incorporated into the preferred SMP
policies that affect this water body in order
Mitigation measures incorporated into SMP policies:
• There are no specific mitigation measures for this transitional water body within the South East RBMP.
However, more knowledge is needed to confirm the likelihood of the possible loss of mudflat and saltmarsh
habitat in PDZ6 as a result of the HTL policies at The Causeway and around Yarmouth, and the MR/NAI
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 71 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
to mitigate the adverse impacts on the
status of the water body? If not, then list
mitigation measures that could be required.
combination policy at Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream. Therefore, the Action Plan in the final SMP
document will include a specific programme of actions for monitoring, consultation and studies to improve
predictions of intertidal developments and understanding of the impact of loss and gain of intertidal
foreshore on flood defence and habitats. The increased knowledge will inform the timing, location and
extent of the saline intrusion up the lower reaches of Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream and thus
optimise defence sustainability and to compensate for the expected deterioration of intertidal habitats and
loss of freshwater habitats.
• Specific mitigation measures for the maintenance of individual schemes resulting from SMP2 policies will
need to be considered when those schemes go through the planning process, and any environmental
issues (including assessment under WFD) regarding the detail of scheme implementation will be dealt with
at this time. This should include consideration of any suitable measures in the RBMP that are relevant to
individual schemes (e.g. use of soft engineering solutions, removing obsolete structures, etc), even though
there are no specific mitigation measures for this water body within the South East RBMP. The Action
Plan in the final SMP document must include a requirement for all schemes resulting from SMP2 policies
to consider those mitigation measures listed in the South East RBMP Programme of Measures.
Can it be shown that the reasons for
selecting the preferred SMP policies are
reasons of overriding public interest (ROPI)
and/or the benefits to the environment and
to society of achieving the Environmental
Objectives are outweighed by the benefits
of the preferred SMP policies to human
health, to the maintenance of health and
safety or to sustainable development?
The policy of hold the line of existing defences at The Causeway in PDZ 6 is required to protect the communities
and transport links (A and B roads) of Freshwater through to Freshwater Bay from tidal flooding, as well as the
loss of Freshwater Marshes on the landward side of the defences. The hold the line policy for around Yarmouth
to Port la Salle is to ensure that the community of Yarmouth and its nationally important transport link to the
mainland are maintained, as well as protecting the tourism and heritage assets of the town. Therefore, it is
undoubtedly clear that the HTL policy has been selected for reasons of overriding public interest, as well as for
the natural environment.
Within the Estuary, the plan supports the need for no active intervention and removal of existing defences to
allow the limited areas of low lying land to flood, so as to address the impact of sea level rise on designated
habitat - i.e. IROPI and benefits to sustainable development.
Refer to the ‘Policy Statements’ for further detail on the economic viability (cost/benefit analysis) and
sustainability of the preferred SMP policies can be found in Appendix H (Economics Appraisal / Sensitivity
Testing) of this SMP2 document.
Have other significantly better options for There are no significantly better options available - as part of the SMP process various policy packages were
developed for each PDZ and were fully appraised against SMP Objectives (which includes an objective on
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 72 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
the SMP policies been considered? Can it
be demonstrated that those better
environmental policy options which were
discounted were done so on the grounds of
being either technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly?
adaptation through supporting and enhancing nature conservation value of the Medina). Further detail on the
Policy Development and Appraisal can be found in Appendix E and the Preferred Policy Appraisal can be found
in Appendix G of this SMP2 document.
A managed realignment option may not be technically unfeasible at The Causeway and would allow the Western
Yar valley to revert to a more natural and sustainable state. However, it would result in the creation of an island
if there were to be a combined breach at Freshwater Bay. This option would however, be disproportionately
costly to provide both damage costs to flooded properties, access to the newly formed island and to find
compensation for the lost freshwater habitats at Freshwater Marshes.
The MR/NAI policy combination at Thorley Brook and Barnfields Stream could feasibly remain a HTL policy. A
HTL policy would be financially unsustainable in the long term, not to mention unsustainable from an
environmental perspective. The costs of maintaining the defences against sea level rise to protect coastal
grazing marsh and freshwater habitats from tidal flooding is likely to be higher than the compensation for flooding
adjacent Grade 3 and 4 agricultural land and mitigation/compensation for the loss of intertidal habitats within the
estuary as a result of HTL.
Can it be demonstrated that the preferred
SMP policies do not permanently exclude
or compromise the achievement of the
objectives of the Directive in water bodies
within the same River Basin District that are
outside of the SMP2 area?
The Environment Agency Flood Map application, groundwater maps and the South East RBMP have been
consulted to check for landward freshwater and groundwater bodies that could be impacted by the SMP2
policies. It is considered unlikely that the Isle of Wight Solent Group GWB will be impacted as a result of the
SMP2 policies as there is no current evidence of saline intrusion since they are designated as ‘Good Status’ (see
Assessment Table 3 and Sections J3.1 and J3.3).
The preferred policy of HTL ensures that the environmental objectives of the Western Yar (Headwater) are
maintained. The policy combination of the SMP2 will have a permanent effect on Thorley Brook and Barnfields
Stream FWBs, since they will result in saline intrusion in the lower reaches of the FWBs causing habitat loss of
extensive areas of freshwater habitats. However, the policy combination does follow the mitigation measure
stated in the South East RBMP of “re-opening existing culverts” particularly as the both these freshwater bodies
have been designated heavily modified water bodies due to urbanisation and flood protection.
SMP2 policies for PDZs in the adjacent TraC water body (Solent) have also been assessed within this report for
potential to cause deterioration in Ecological Status / Potential.
Can it be shown that there are no other This water body includes part of the Solent and Southampton SPA and Ramsar site, Yar Estuary SSSI, and
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 73 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Water body WFD Summary Statement checklist A brief description of decision making and reference to further documentation within the SMP
over-riding issues that should be
considered (e.g. designated sites,
recommendations of the Appropriate
Assessment)?
several classes of UKBAP habitat, importantly intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh. The intent of the SMP2 policy is
to defend the integrity of the communities of Yarmouth and Freshwater, as well as transport links and importantly
the natural and sustainable evolution of the Western Yar estuary. The losses and gains of designated habitat as
a result of this policy are discussed in detail in the Habitats Regulations Assessment in Appendix I of this SMP
document.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 74 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
J4 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
J4.1.1 The WFD assessment of the SMP2 policies for each PDZ (Assessment Table 3) and the
water body summary of achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives (which includes
what RBMP mitigation measures have been attained; Assessment Table 4) identified that
there is potential that Environmental Objectives WFD2 and/or WFD3 may not be met in five
of the TraC water bodies (Solent, Medina Estuary, Wootton Creek, Eastern Yar and
Western Yar) within the Isle of Wight SMP2 area. As a result, Water Framework Directive
Summary Statements have been completed for these five water bodies.
J4.1.2 However, it must be noted that this assessment is based upon a precautionary approach
where it has been determined that there is potential for SMP2 policies to result in
deterioration of Ecological Status or Potential of a water body and hence potential for
failure to meet WFD Environmental Objectives. Therefore, a precautionary check has been
made against the conditions outlined in Article 4.7 of the Directive. The Summary
Statements outline the reasons behind selecting the preferred SMP2 policy and any
mitigation measures that have been incorporated into policies (which are also shown in
Assessment Table 4), or that must be included in the SMP2 Action Plan so that all strategy
or schemes must incorporate the relevant South East RBMP mitigation measures to ensure
that Good Ecological Potential/Status is achieved by either 2015 or 2027 at the latest.
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 75 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
REFERENCES
Defra (2006). Shoreline management plan guidance Volume 2: Procedures. Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, March 2006, 77pp.
Environment Agency (2008). River Basin Management Plan: South East River Basin
District. December 2009.
Environment Agency (2009a). South East River Basin Management Plan (SERBMP).
Main Document and Supporting Documents. November 2009.
Environment Agency (2009b). Eastern Yar Flood and Erosion Management Strategy –
Draft Options Appraisal Report. November 2009.
European Commission (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field
of water policy. Known as the ‘Water Framework Directive’. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF
Royal Haskoning (2008). Water Framework Directive: Retrospective Assessment for the
River Tyne To Flamborough Head SMP2. December 2008.
Royal Haskoning (2009). Water Framework Directive: Guidance for Assessment of SMPs
under WFD. January 2009.
WEBSITES
Environment Agency: ‘What’s in your backyard?’ for WFD [Accessed 28/02/09].
Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx
Isle of Wight SMP2: Appendix J - 76 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
WFD Assessment – Final Report December 2010
Glossary
Abbreviation Term
AWB Artificial Water Body
BQE Biological Quality Element
DrWPA Drinking Water Protected Area
EU European Union
FWB Freshwater Body
GEP Good Ecological Potential
GWB Groundwater Body
HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body
HTL Hold the Line
IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest
MAN Management Unit
MR Managed Realignment
NAI No Active Intervention
PDZ Policy Development Zone
PU Policy Unit
RBC2 River Basin Characterisation 2
RBD River Basin District
RBMP River Basin Management Plan
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SPA Special Protection Area
SPZ Source Protection Zone
SSSI Special Site of Scientific Interest
TAG WFD UK Technical Advisory Group
TraC Transitional and Coastal Water Bodies
UKBAP United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan
UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
WFD Water Framework Directive
WPM With Present Management
Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan 2: Appendix J – Water Framework Directive Assessment
(Supporting Annexes)
Isle of Wight Council
December 2010
Final Report
9V8288 / 03
This report has been prepared by Haskoning UK Ltd. solely for Isle of Wight Council in accordance with the terms of appointment for the Isle of Wight SMP2 dated December 2009 and should not be relied upon by third parties for any use whatsoever without express permission in writing from Haskoning UK Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, including photocopying, or transmitted by electronic means, or stored in an electronic retrieval system without express permission in writing from Haskoning UK Ltd.
A COMPANY OF
Document title Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan 2:
Appendix J – Water Framework Directive
Assessment
Status Final Report
Date December 2010
Project name Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan 2
Project number 9V8288 / 03
Client Isle of Wight Council
Reference 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v1/Lond
Stratus House
Emperor Way
Exeter, Devon EX1 3QS
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1392 447999 Telephone
Fax
[email protected] E-mail
www.royalhaskoning.com Internet
HASKONING UK LTD.
ENVIRONMENT
Drafted by Jacky Lavender and Dr Elizabeth Jolley
Checked by Dr Elizabeth Jolley
Date/initials check ECJ 05.07.10
Approved by Dr Helen Dangerfield
Date/initials approval HRD 08.07.10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 77 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
ANNEX J-I: SMP2 POLICY UNITS AND RELEVANT WATER BODIES
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 78 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Blank page
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 79 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Annex J-I Table 1 The water body types within each of the Policy Development Zones (PDZs), Management Areas (MANs) and Policy Units (PUs) for the Isle of Wight
SMP2. For each Policy Unit there preferred policy is given for each of the three epochs.
SMP2 Policies Preferred Policy Water Body Type
PDZ MAN PU Policy Name 2025 2055 2105 Coastal Transitional Freshwater Groundwater
PU1A.1 Gurnard Luck HTL NAI NAI Solent Gurnard Luck Solent Group
PU1A.2 Gurnard Cliff NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
PU1A.3 Gurnard to
Cowes Parade
HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
PU1A.4 West Cowes HTL HTL HTL Solent Medina Solent Group
PU1A.5 East Cowes HTL HTL HTL Solent Medina Solent Group
MAN1A
PU1A.6 East Cowes
Outer Esplanade
HTL NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
PU1B.1 Central Medina
NW
NAI NAI NAI Solent Medina Solent Group
PU1B.2 West Medina
Mills
HTL HTL HTL Solent Medina Solent Group
PU1B.3 Central Medina
SW
NAI NAI NAI Solent Medina Dodnor Creek Solent Group
1
MAN1B
PU1B.4 Newport Harbour HTL HTL HTL Solent Medina Lukely Brook,
River Medina
Solent Group
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 80 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
SMP2 Policies Preferred Policy Water Body Type
PDZ MAN PU Policy Name 2025 2055 2105 Coastal Transitional Freshwater Groundwater
PU1B.5 Central Medina
East
NAI NAI NAI Solent Medina Alverston Stream
(Medina)
Solent Group
PU2A.1 Osborne Bay NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group MAN2A
PU2A.2 Woodside NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
PU2B.1 Western Wootton
Creek
NAI NAI NAI Solent Wootton Creek Solent Group
PU2B.2 South-west
Wootton Creek
HTL HTL HTL Solent Wootton Creek Solent Group
PU2B.3 Old Mill Pond MR MR MR Solent Wootton Creek Solent Group
PU2B.4 South-east
Wootton Creek
HTL HTL HTL Solent Wootton Creek Solent Group
PU2B.5 Eastern Wootton
Creek
NAI NAI NAI Solent Wootton Creek Solent Group
PU2B.6 Fishbourne Ferry
Terminal
HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
PU2B.7 Outer Eastern
Creek
HTL HTL MR Solent Solent Group
MAN2B
PU2B.8 Quarr and
Binstead
NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
PU2C.1 Ryde HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
2
MAN2C
PU2C.2 Appley and
Puckpool
HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 81 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
SMP2 Policies Preferred Policy Water Body Type
PDZ MAN PU Policy Name 2025 2055 2105 Coastal Transitional Freshwater Groundwater
PU2C.3 Springvale to
Seaview
HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
PU2C.4 Seagrove Bay HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
PU3A.1 Priory Bay NAI NAI NAI Solent Eastern Yar Solent Group
PU3A.2 St Helens Duver HTL HTL MR Solent Eastern Yar Solent Group
PU3A.3 St Helens HTL HTL HTL Solent Eastern Yar Solent Group
PU3A.4 Embankment
Road
HTL HTL HTL Solent Eastern Yar,
Bembridge
Harbour
Lagoon
Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
MAN3A
PU3A.5 Bembridge Point NAI NAI NAI Solent Eastern Yar Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
PU3B.1 Bembridge NAI NAI NAI Solent Eastern Yar Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
PU3B.2 Lane End HTL HTL MR Solent, Isle of
Wight East
Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
PU3B.3 Foreland MR MR MR Isle of Wight East Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
PU3B.4 Foreland Fields HTL HTL MR Isle of Wight East Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
3
MAN3B
PU3B.5 Whitecliff Bay NAI NAI NAI Isle of Wight East Solent Group, Lower
Greensand
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 82 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
SMP2 Policies Preferred Policy Water Body Type
PDZ MAN PU Policy Name 2025 2055 2105 Coastal Transitional Freshwater Groundwater
PU3C.1 Culver Cliff &
Red Cliff
NAI NAI NAI Isle of Wight East Solent Group, Lower
Greensand, Central
Downs Chalk
PU3C.2 Yaverland and
Eastern Yar
Valley
HTL HTL HTL Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand
PU3C.3 Sandown and
Shanklin
HTL HTL HTL Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand
MAN3C
PU3C.4 Luccombe NAI NAI NAI Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand,
Southern Downs Chalk
PU4A.1 Dunnose NAI NAI NAI Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand,
Southern Downs Chalk
MAN4A
PU4A.2 Ventnor &
Bonchurch
HTL HTL HTL Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand,
Southern Downs Chalk
PU4B.1 St Lawrence
Undercliff
NAI NAI NAI Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand,
Southern Downs Chalk
PU4B.2 Castlehaven HTL HTL MR Isle of Wight East Lower Greensand,
Southern Downs Chalk
4
MAN4B
PU4B.3 St Catherines
and Blackgang
NAI NAI NAI Isle of Wight East,
Dorset/Hampshire
Lower Greensand,
Southern Downs Chalk
5 MAN5 PU5.1 Central Chale
Bay to Compton
Bay
NAI NAI NAI Dorset/Hampshire Lower Greensand,
Central Downs Chalk,
PU6A.1 Freshwater Bay HTL HTL HTL Dorset/Hampshire Lower Greensand,
Central Downs Chalk,
6 MAN6A
PU6A.2 Tennyson Down,
Alum Bay and
Headon Warren
NAI NAI NAI Dorset/Hampshire,
Solent
Lower Greensand,
Central Downs Chalk,
Solent Group
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 83 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
SMP2 Policies Preferred Policy Water Body Type
PDZ MAN PU Policy Name 2025 2055 2105 Coastal Transitional Freshwater Groundwater
PU6B.1 Totland and
Colwell
HTL HTL HTL Solent Solent Group
PU6B.2 Central Colwell
Bay
NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
PU6B.3 Fort Albert HTL HTL NAI Solent Solent Group
PU6B.4 Fort Victoria
Country Park
NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
MAN6B
PU6B.5 Fort Victoria and
Norton
HTL NAI NAI Solent Solent Group
PU6C.1 Norton Spit HTL HTL HTL Solent Western Yar Solent Group
PU6C.2 Western Yar
Estuary - west
NAI NAI NAI Solent Western Yar Solent Group
PU6C.3 The Causeway HTL HTL HTL Solent Western Yar Western Yar Solent Group
PU6C.4 Western Yar
Estuary - east
NAI NAI NAI Solent Western Yar Solent Group
PU6C.5 Thorley Brook
and Barnfields
Stream
HTL MR NAI Solent Western Yar Thorley Brook,
Barnsfield
Stream
Solent Group
MAN6C
PU6C.6 Yarmouth to Port
la Salle
HTL HTL HTL Solent Western Yar Thorley Brook Solent Group
PU7.1 Bouldnor Copse
and Hamstead
NAI NAI NAI Solent Solent Group 7 MAN7
PU7.2 Newtown
Estuary
NAI NAI NAI Solent Newtown River Solent Group
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 84 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
SMP2 Policies Preferred Policy Water Body Type
PDZ MAN PU Policy Name 2025 2055 2105 Coastal Transitional Freshwater Groundwater
PU7.3 Thorness Bay
and southern
Gurnard Bay
NAI NAI NAI Solent Great Thorness
Stream, Little
Thorness Stream
Solent Group
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 85 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
ANNEX J-II: SCOPED OUT FRESHWATER BODIES
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 86 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Blank page
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 87 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Annex J-II Table 1 Fresh Water Bodies (all are rivers – there are no lakes) within the Isle of Wight
Catchment that were scoped out of the WFD Assessment based on the 1 in 1000
year flood zone for 2110. All Isle of Wight FWBs water ID starts with GB10710100 –
the last four digits of the ID are given below.
Freshwater Body Name
(ID number)
Hydromorphological
Designation
Ecological Quality Comments
Scoped Out – Not at risk of saline intrusion from a 1 in 1000 year flood
Ningwood Stream
(GB6000)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential Hydrology – high
Caul Bourne (GB6020) Heavily Modified Moderate Potential High Ammonia, Copper and
Zinc pollutants. Macro-
invertebrates – good;
Brook Chine (GB5950) Heavily Modified Moderate Potential No information available
Fleetlands Copse
Stream (GB6050)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential Hydrology – high
Brighstone Streams
(GB5940)
Not Designated
A/HMWB
Good Status Macro-invertebrates – good;
Morphology – good;
Hydrology – not high.
Barton Manor Stream
(GB6200)
Not Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate Status
Rodge Brook (GB6080) Not Designated
A/HMWB
Poor Status Fish – poor; macro-
invertebrates – moderate;
Hydrology – high;
Morphology – good. 3
measures
Blackbridge Brook
(GB6100)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential
Atherfield Stream
(GB15920)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential
Chilton Chine (GB5930) Not Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate Status
Walpan Chine (GB5900) Heavily Modified Moderate Potential
Monktonmend Brook
(GB6120)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential
Nettlestone Stream
(GB6070)
Not Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate Status
Pondwell Stream
(GB6090)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential 0 measures
Quarr Stream (GB6140) Heavily Modified Moderate Potential 0 measures
Binstead Stream
(GB6130)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential 0 measures
Palmers Brook
(GB6190)
Not Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate Status Macroinvertebrates – Good.
Hydrology – high.
Morphology – Good. 3
measures
Shanklin Chine Stream
(GB5910)
Heavily Modified Moderate Potential 0 measures
Wroxall Stream
(GB6210)
Not Designated
A/HMWB
Moderate Status 1 measure
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 88 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Blank page
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 89 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
ANNEX J-III: CSG REVIEW COMMENTS
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 90 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Blank page
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 91 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Annex J-III Table 1 CSG Review Comments June 2010
Client Steering Group and Interested Parties Document Review
Document Title: Appendix J – WFD Assessment Project No.: IWSMP2 To be returned to: [email protected]
General Comments: Reviewer: All Organisation: IWCAHES, Environment Agency,
Environment Agency: Need to be consistent with KitigationKion of ‘water body’ as it changes within the report. No comments from an RHCP perspective. I have reviewed this from the WFD process point of view rather than from the technical perspective of the impact of the policies on the ecology for which I am not qualified. The procedures outlined in the WFD assessment guidance appear to have been followed. It is however clear from the series of Table 5s that the Section 6 Action Plan will be extremely important in specifying the requirement for all schemes resulting from SMP2 policies to consider those mitigation measures listed in the SE RBMP. As has been stated the assessment has been precautionary but it is important that WFD environmental objectives are properly considered at the detailed planning stage of individual schemes implementing the SMP2 policies.
In addition I have concerns about how the Mitigation Measures identified in the River Basin Plan have been dealt with in this document. I would like them included early in the document (Assessment Table 2- see attached) and then discussed in Assessment Table 5. I am disappointed with the summary statement in tables 5 “The Action Plan in the final SMP document should include a requirement for all scheme resulting from SMP2 policies to consider those mitigation measures listed in the South East RBMP Programme of Measures”. I thought this was the purpose of the Appendix J document.
Ljolley: The WFD assessment does take into consideration the mitigation measures from the SE RBMP, these were originally listed in Table 3.1 for the TraC water bodies and discussed in Assessment Table 5. The relevant mitigation measures have also been added to Assessment Table 2 so that any future reader can clearly see how important the mitigation measures are, as well as Table 3.2 (FWBs) and Assessment Table 4 – which now shows a summary of which measures have been attained. Where it has been necessary to proposed mitigation measures to be taken forward at a lower-tier level (e.g. strategy level) or where more research is required where we have been unable to change the policy these will be stated and may be put in the SMP Action Plan. This will be for mitigation measures that could not be implemented in an obvious way, for example, the MR policy at Thorley Brook and Barnsfield (PU6C.5), MR of Wootton Creek (PU2B.3), both of which is in line with the mitigation measures by opening up existing culverts to enhance ecological value).
Assessment Table 3 is where the majority of the assessment takes place. However I did find it confusing which water body was being referred to. After a while the colour coding on the left looked like it referred to each water body. However for clarity could the name of the water body be introduced to this table – Ljolley: Amended and made more clear to the reader.
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 92 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Page No.
Paragraph Line Comment Name Organisation Date IWCCE Response Name Date
Foreword Should this say, ‘They key contact for the Water Framework Directive Assessment is…’
Emily Allison Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 5-Jul-10
2 Table1.1 Type Physico’ not ‘Phyiso’ Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
4 5 (J1.2.12) 7 Add ‘set out in Article 4.7 of the WFD’ after ‘conditions’ in order to link this para to the one above
Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
4 J1.2.11 First bullet point is long. Can it be broken up?
Emily Allison Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
7 J2.2.7 5 Impacts of changes in sediment transport will affect FISH, plus benthic invertebrates, saltmarsh and seagrass . Please add these BQEs to statement.
SRJ Environment Agency
Added Ljolley 17-Jun-10
7 J2.3 This section defines the features and issues. Could the Mitigation measures for individual water bodys listed in the River Basin Plan be incorperated into Assessment Table 2 (refer to example layout).
SRJ Environment Agency
Added in the Mitigation Measures – although these were already listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 93 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Page No.
Paragraph Line Comment Name Organisation Date IWCCE Response Name Date
7 J2.4.1 5 “For each PU, the potential changes….. were identified”. This statement is not correct. Assessment tables 2 and 3 DO NOT assess the impact of each PU. They only make a general statement per Water body.
SRJ Environment Agency
Assessment Table 2 – assesses for each water body. Assessment Table 3 does however make an assessment at a PU level but summarises it at a Mangement Unit Level for each relevant water body- i.e. where the same effect occurs along a frontage because of the policy is the same it is more clear to summarise. Changed text in J2.4.5 and table to make this clearer.
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
8 J2.4.1 This section describes the Kitigation process. Could additional detail on when the mitigation measures are being discussed be included in this section. Suggest include text Kitigatio to Kitigation measures in paragraph J2.4.5 as assessment takes place in Table 5
SRJ Environment Agency
Added Ljolley 17-Jun-10
9 J3.1.1 4 Old mill Ponds (near Bembridge) IS included in this description as a transitional waterbody. However is has been missed out of all the other tables (Table 3.1 p9, Assessment Table 1p22,Assessment Table 4.etc) (refer to map for location)
SRJ Environment Agency
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
12 Fig 3.2 N/a Ningwood Stream should have number 6000 not 6060
Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Changed in Figure Ljolley 17-Jun-10
12 Fig 3.2 N/a The bolded names on the map do not match all of those on the table 3.2 eg. Newtown creek area WBs and 6220 Eastern Yar
Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Figure Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 94 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Page No.
Paragraph Line Comment Name Organisation Date IWCCE Response Name Date
14 J3.1.8 6 Not sure consented discharges to rivers are relevant to groundwater
Lucy Roberts Environment Agency
08-Jun-10
Removed sentence Ljolley 17-Jun-10
14 J3.1.9 10 Should be ‘Safeguard’ zones Lucy Roberts Environment Agency
08-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
14 Table 3.3 N/a Table description should relate to Groundwater and not TraCs
Lucy Roberts Environment Agency
08-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
15 2 5 headland’ rather than ‘headline’ Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
17 Fig3.4 Old mill Ponds water body is not included / highlighted on map
SRJ Environment Agency
Added Ljolley 5-Jul-10
21 J3.2.2 3 Whereas… not a sentence Rloader (IWCAHES)
10-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
21 J3.2.3 2 composed of Rloader (IWCAHES)
10-Jun-10
Changed Ljolley 17-Jun-10
23 Assess Table 2
N/a I see that the table is missing the column to identify WFD restoration or mitigation measures that have the potential to be designed into SMP policy from the Programme of Measures. SMPs were considered as an important opportunity to implement some of the specific measures in the plan. Were these considered as I can’t see it in the outline of the methodology at J2.3?
Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Added in the text in J2.3.3 and J2.3.4 to clearly show that the mitigation measures from the SE RBMP have been considered. They were in Table 3.1, though have since been added into Table 3.2, Assessment Table 2 and 4.
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
30 Rt column N/a Colour coding for Medina TraC does not match earlier colour coding from here to end of document
Jim Whatley , 03-Jun-10
Checked colours and made amends where necessary. Added in Text to make clearer.
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
33 PDZ2 WFD Assessment of deterioration
4 typo – Osborne Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 95 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Page No.
Paragraph Line Comment Name Organisation Date IWCCE Response Name Date
33 PDZ2 WFD Assessment of deterioration
7 typo – over time Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
34 2 Would saltmarsh be affected by this coastal squeeze? Saltmarsh not mentioned in this PU assessment.
SRJ Environment Agency
Only minimal amounts found in Wootton Creek – these are under angiosperms and have been considered. Text amended where necessary.
Cearlie 18-Jun-10
34 WDF Assessment of Deterioration, para 3
typo – management of changes to
salinity Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-
10 Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
36 and 37
2 and 1 There are extensive Seagrass beds around entrance to Benbridge Harbour. Please include Seagrass in this PU assessment.
SRJ Environment Agency
Added into assessment Ljolley 5-Jul-10
37 WDF Assessment of Deterioration
10 typo – over time Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
39 WDF Assessment of Deterioration, para 2
typo – from in Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
40 WDF Assessment of Deterioration, para 2
12 typo – effects Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 96 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Page No.
Paragraph Line Comment Name Organisation Date IWCCE Response Name Date
44 PU7.1WDF Assessment of Deterioration
1 comprises, not comprises of Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
44 PU7.2WDF Assessment of Deterioration
1 comprises, not comprises of Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
45 1 4 Saltmarsh should also be included as a Biological Element.However, at present it has not yet been assessed
SRJ Environment Agency
Saltmarsh is an angiosperm and is not always mentioned as saltmarsh, will amend text so clear
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
45 PU7.3WDF Assessment of Deterioration
1 comprise, not comprise of Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
45 PU7.3WDF Assessment of Deterioration, para 2
7 Remove one ‘therefore’ Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
49 1 3 Add ref to Gurnard Luck (PU1A.1) Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Added Ljolley 5-Jul-10
49 WDF Assessment of Deterioration, 3rd bullet
point
5 typo – Osborne Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 97 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
Page No.
Paragraph Line Comment Name Organisation Date IWCCE Response Name Date
50 1 3 Replace ‘should’ with ‘must’.(Likewise on all other Table 5s) This is a very important point and should also be made in the main document Secion 2.4.3 also referring to the Section 6 Action plan.
Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Replaced should with must. Also this point has been emphasised in Sections J2.4.3 and J3.3.1.
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
57 2 N/a Does this bullet also refer to the other SE RBMP mitigation action of ‘Remove obsolete structure’ which is not mentioned.
Jim Whatley Environment Agency
03-Jun-10
Yes this does – Addition of those measures from the RBMP has been added to Assessment Table 4.
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
58 Brief description…
2 typo – studied Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed Cearlie 18-Jun-10
61 Brief description…
2 policy. Though this seems – replace . with,
Rloader IWCAHES 10-Jun-10
Changed to ‘policy. A HTL policy would be…’
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
61 J4.1.1 Need to include water body “Old Mill pond” in text
SRJ Environment Agency
Included in the ‘Eastern Yar’ water body
Ljolley 5-Jul-10
Isle of Wight SMP2 - 98 - 9V8288/03/WFD Report/v2/Lond
Appendix J: WFD – Supporting Annexes December 2010
- End of Document -